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    [W:0.021 / U:0.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site