lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [AppArmor 38/45] AppArmor: Module and LSM hooks
    Date
    On Wednesday 06 June 2007 15:09, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:30 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
    > > On Monday 04 June 2007 15:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > > How will kernel work with very long paths? I'd suspect some problems,
    > > > if path is 1MB long and I attempt to print it in /proc
    > > > somewhere.
    > >
    > > Pathnames are only used for informational purposes in the kernel, except
    > > in AppArmor of course.
    >
    > I don't mean this as a flame, but isn't the above statement the very
    > crux of this discussion?

    I think the question at the core of it all is, shall a pathname based security
    mechanism be allowed. I was under the impression that this question had
    already been answered affirmatively. If the answer here was no, then we could
    stop the entire discussion right there.

    > Why should AppArmor be different from the rest of the kernel in its usage of
    > pathnames (basis for decisions vs. informational reporting to userspace)?
    > And if it is ok for AppArmor to generate and use pathnames as its basis of
    > decisions on each open, then is it also ok for audit, inotify, and others to
    > use them in the same manner?

    Audit and inotify don't make any decisions based on pathnames, or on SELinux
    labels for that matter, they only report. That being said, sure those parts
    of the kernel that report pathnames should report them correctly -- I guess
    there is no disagreement about that.

    > Another question: it seems like the read-only bind mount folks gave up
    > on propagating the vfsmounts down and switched to a rather different
    > approach (checking near the entry points, using mount writer counters).
    > So similarly, what makes AppArmor fundamentally different that it
    > wouldn't take a similar approach to what they are doing vs. propagating
    > the vfsmounts down?

    Without the vfsmounts propagated down you won't know the pathnames. Whether
    or not a different problem can be solved without the vfsmounts is not really
    relevant.

    Thanks,
    Andreas
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-11 01:13    [W:0.043 / U:0.212 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site