[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: (repost) Confirmation of methods for calculating requested pathname.
Quoting Kentaro Takeda (
> Al, could you answer the following question?
> The current Linux kernel is not designed to pass vfsmount parameter
> that is crucial for pathname-based security including AppArmor and
> TOMOYO Linux, to LSM. Though both projects have been proposing
> patches to calculate pathname, none of them have been accepted as
> you know.
> To find the reason for NACK, we examined past proposals and the
> threads. And we came to understand that you oppose accessing vfsmount
> inside vfs helper functions. Is our understanding correct?
> If our understanding is correct, we would like to propose a new
> method that does not require modifications to vfs helper functions.
> Attached patch is a trial of this method.
> vfs helper functions are surrounded by mnt_want_write() and
> mnt_drop_write() pairs which receive "struct vfsmount" parameter

I thought Al and others (Stephen?) had made it clear that the thing to do was
add new lsm hooks there. So whereas inode_permission takes only an inode and
ends up calling security_inode_permission, you would add a
security_path_permission() or somesuch before or after the call to
inode_permission(), where as you've noted the path is available. You're
*close* to doing the right thing by having a helper who is called at the right
place catch the vfsmount, but you refuse to send a patch doing exactly what
has been suggested.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-02 15:15    [W:0.070 / U:8.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site