[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.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:31:50PM +0900, Kentaro Takeda wrote:
> 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
> since 2.6.26. So, by remembering the absolute pathname of "struct
> vfsmount" of the moment, LSM module can calculate an absolute
> pathname of the given "struct dentry" parameter inside vfs_*
> functions, without passing "struct vfsmount" parameter to vfs_*
> functions.
> This approach doesn't access vfsmount inside vfs helper functions,
> and modification of existing kernel is only in task_struct and
> mnt_want/drop_write().

I don't know what Al Viro will say, but this is incredibly ugly.
Even more ugly than previous patches.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-02 07:07    [W:0.074 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site