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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:16:37 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: file metadata via fs API (was: [GIT PULL] Filesystem Information)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:33 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 05:13:14PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

> > Why does it have to have a struct mount?  It does not have to use
> > dentry/mount based path lookup.
>
> What the fuck?  So we suddenly get an additional class of objects
> serving as kinda-sorta analogues of dentries *AND* now struct file
> might refer to that instead of a dentry/mount pair - all on the VFS
> level?  And so do all the syscalls you want to allow for such "pathnames"?

The only syscall I'd want to allow is open, everything else would be
on the open files themselves.

file->f_path can refer to an anon mount/inode, the real object is
referred to by file->private_data.

The change to namei.c would be on the order of ~10 lines.  No other
parts of the VFS would be affected.   Maybe I'm optimistic; we'll
see...

Now off to something completely different.  Back on Tuesday.

Thanks,
Miklos

Powered by blists - more mailing lists