lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)
From
Date
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:53 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting david safford (safford@watson.ibm.com):
> > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask)
> > > > {
> > > > - return inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > > + int retval;
> > > > +
> > > > + retval = inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > > + if (retval)
> > > > + return retval;
> > > > + return integrity_inode_permission(NULL, &nd->path,
> > > > + mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> > > > + MAY_EXEC));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -306,7 +314,14 @@ int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask)
> > > > */
> > > > int file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
> > > > {
> > > > - return inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > > + int retval;
> > > > +
> > > > + retval = inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > > + if (retval)
> > > > + return retval;
> > > > + return integrity_inode_permission(file, NULL,
> > > > + mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> > > > + MAY_EXEC));
> > >
> > > Please don't add anything here as these two wrappers will go away.
> > > Please only make decisions based on what you get in inode_permission().
> >
> > Hmm... As Mimi mentioned in the last review, we really need access
> > to a path, which is not available in inode_permission. (Note the
> > path is not used to make any integrity decision, but is recorded along
> > with the measurement to help with the integrity analysis by a third
> > party verifier.) Yes, there are other callers without path information,
> > but getting a path here covers the bulk of the measurements.
> >
> > Is there some other alternative, other than this, or passing the
> > dentry into inode_permission, which was also rejected?
>
> Whatever happened to the patch Mimi had floated to use the audit
> subsystem to output a pathname? I thought that was pretty neat,
> and it made particularly clear the the pathname was purely
> informational.
>
> -serge

I'll double check with Mimi, but my recollection is that using the
audit pathnames was nice, in that it returned a full path as a hint,
not just a dentry filename, but that the audit system often did not
have a path yet, so both the dentry name and the audit path were
desirable.

dave


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-14 19:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans