lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH (mmotm-2008-12-02-17-08)] Introduce security_path_set/clear() hooks.
From
Date
Hello.

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > Right. Locations of inserting security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs
> > are subset of mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs. Thus, we can insert
> > security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs into
> > mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs, if we can tolerate performance
> > regression. According to our rough measurement, there is about 8 - 22% of
> > performance regression. But this approach needs minimum modification to the
> > existing kernel (only two hooks to be inserted).
>
> I assume you also need separate hooks to cover the read-only open case?

security_dentry_open() receives "struct file *", so I think we don't need
separate hooks for open(O_RDONLY).

> As for your performance, your implementation of mp_* is clearly
> non-optimal, so I'd expect there is plenty of room for improvement
> there.

Yes. Thus, I want to pass a caller identifier to mnt_want_write() so that
we can skip calculating vfsmount's pathname when it is not interested for
a LSM module (e.g. mnt_want_write() called for updating atime/ctime/mtime
checks).
May I add "int caller_id" to mnt_want_write()?

> No #ifdef's within the functions, of course. That gets handled by
> security.h.
OK.

Regards.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-06 00:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site