linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security hook for fs notifications

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <60654c12-0742-8653-231b-312f48e0149b@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:53:07 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Aaron Goidel <acgoide@...ho.nsa.gov>, paul@...l-moore.com
Cc:     selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
        amir73il@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security
 hook for fs notifications

On 7/10/19 10:22 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 10:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 09:49 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 7/10/19 9:38 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2019 6:34 AM, Aaron Goidel wrote:
>>>>> @@ -3261,6 +3262,26 @@ static int selinux_inode_removexattr(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name)
>>>>>  	return -EACCES;
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>> +static int selinux_inode_notify(struct inode *inode, u64 mask)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	u32 perm = FILE__WATCH; // basic permission, can a watch be set?
>>>>
>>>> We don't use // comments in the Linux kernel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that we had recently moved into the 21st century on that issue,
>>> but I don't see it mentioned in coding-style.rst.  Maybe we need a Doc update.
>>>
>>> checkpatch allows C99 comments by default.
>>> Joe, do you recall about this?
>>
>> My recollection is it was something I thought was
>> just simple and useful so I added it to checkpatch
>> without going through the negative of the nominal
>> approvals required by modifying CodingStyle.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/8/625
> 

Aha, thanks, I don't recall seeing that one.

-- 
~Randy