linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 01/26] securityfs: rework dentry creation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <c76f52d9-07eb-39dd-dad4-43b108696539@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 12:50:40 -0400
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
        mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com, lsturman@...hat.com,
        puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        jpenumak@...hat.com, John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>,
        Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/26] securityfs: rework dentry creation



On 5/10/22 06:25, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 02:54:14PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:06:08AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> When securityfs creates a new file or directory via
>>> securityfs_create_dentry() it will take an additional reference on the
>>> newly created dentry after it has attached the new inode to the new
>>> dentry and added it to the hashqueues.
>>> If we contrast this with debugfs which has the same underlying logic as
>>> securityfs. It uses a similar pairing as securityfs. Where securityfs
>>> has the securityfs_create_dentry() and securityfs_remove() pairing,
>>> debugfs has the __debugfs_create_file() and debugfs_remove() pairing.
>>>
>>> In contrast to securityfs, debugfs doesn't take an additional reference
>>> on the newly created dentry in __debugfs_create_file() which would need
>>> to be put in debugfs_remove().
>>>
>>> The additional dget() isn't a problem per se. In the current
>>> implementation of securityfs each created dentry pins the filesystem via
>>
>> Is 'via' an extra word here or is there a missing word?
>>
>> I'll delay the rest of my response as the missing word may answer my
>> remaining question :)
> 
> It can be both. It should either be removed or it should be followed by
> "securityfs_create_dentry()". securityfs_create_dentry() takes two

I am adding "securityfs_create_dentry()" to the text.