lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] SLIM main patch
Quoting Dave Hansen (haveblue@us.ibm.com):
> > +static void revoke_file_wperm(struct slm_file_xattr *cur_level)
> > +{
> > + int i, j = 0;
> > + struct files_struct *files = current->files;
> > + unsigned long fd = 0;
> > + struct fdtable *fdt;
> > + struct file *file;
> > +
> > + if (!files || !cur_level)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > + fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + i =j * __NFDBITS;
> > + if ( i>= fdt->max_fdset || i >= fdt->max_fds)
> > + break;
> > + fd = fdt->open_fds->fds_bits[j++];
> > + while(fd) {
> > + if (fd & 1) {
> > + file = fdt->fd[i++];
> > + if (file && file->f_dentry)
> > + do_revoke_file_wperm(file, cur_level);
> > + }
> > + fd >>= 1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > +}
>
> This is an awfully ugly function ;)
>
> Instead of actually walking the fd table and revoking permissions, would
> doing a hook in generic_write_permission() help? It might be easier to
> switch back and forth.

Or, would using security_file_permission(), which is called on each read
and write to an open file, suffice? Would it perform as well as this
way?

-serge
-
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: 2006-07-14 21:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans