From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, casey@schaufler-ca.com
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, steved@redhat.com,
trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching [try #3]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <959629.46851.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13221.1187022703@redhat.com>
--- David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> > > (1) int security_get_context(void **_context);
> > >
> > > This allocates and gives the caller a blob that describes the current
> > > context of all the LSM module states attached to the current task and
> > > stores a pointer to it in *_context.
> >
> > Is this intended to be anything more than a copy of current->security?
>
> It has to be sufficient to fully effect security_push().
Which is why it requires an LSM interface. Just checking.
> > I assume that you're talking about the LSM specific data changing,
> > not the LSM itself.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If you change the task->security information you are definitly going
> > to change what other tasks can do to the calling task.
>
> I dealt with that in my current act-as patch. Under SELinux a task has two
> primary labels. One with which it is labelled and is used to govern effects
> upon it, and one that is used to act upon things and follows changes to the
> former.
The specification of your push interface that the push operation
not affect how others access the process is OK for SELinux, but
not for any other MAC scheme that I've dealt with, and I think
that's most of them. Nuts. Smack, for example, uses exactly one
label on the process for all purposes.
Are you concerned about accesses other than signals? Signals
could be staitforward to deal with in a pushed situation, but
I'd hesitate to say that the solution would generalize without
additional thought.
> > > (5) int security_xfrm_to_kernel_context(void *from, void **_to);
> >
> > Woof. What are you transforming from?
>
> In CacheFiles case, the cachefilesd daemon's security label into the label
> the
> cache driver acts as on behalf of other processes.
I'm not sure I understand what this is doing.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, casey@schaufler-ca.com
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, steved@redhat.com,
trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching [try #3]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <959629.46851.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13221.1187022703@redhat.com>
--- David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> > > (1) int security_get_context(void **_context);
> > >
> > > This allocates and gives the caller a blob that describes the current
> > > context of all the LSM module states attached to the current task and
> > > stores a pointer to it in *_context.
> >
> > Is this intended to be anything more than a copy of current->security?
>
> It has to be sufficient to fully effect security_push().
Which is why it requires an LSM interface. Just checking.
> > I assume that you're talking about the LSM specific data changing,
> > not the LSM itself.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If you change the task->security information you are definitly going
> > to change what other tasks can do to the calling task.
>
> I dealt with that in my current act-as patch. Under SELinux a task has two
> primary labels. One with which it is labelled and is used to govern effects
> upon it, and one that is used to act upon things and follows changes to the
> former.
The specification of your push interface that the push operation
not affect how others access the process is OK for SELinux, but
not for any other MAC scheme that I've dealt with, and I think
that's most of them. Nuts. Smack, for example, uses exactly one
label on the process for all purposes.
Are you concerned about accesses other than signals? Signals
could be staitforward to deal with in a pushed situation, but
I'd hesitate to say that the solution would generalize without
additional thought.
> > > (5) int security_xfrm_to_kernel_context(void *from, void **_to);
> >
> > Woof. What are you transforming from?
>
> In CacheFiles case, the cachefilesd daemon's security label into the label
> the
> cache driver acts as on behalf of other processes.
I'm not sure I understand what this is doing.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, casey@schaufler-ca.com
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, torvalds@osdl.org,
linux-cachefs@redhat.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching [try #3]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <959629.46851.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13221.1187022703@redhat.com>
--- David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> > > (1) int security_get_context(void **_context);
> > >
> > > This allocates and gives the caller a blob that describes the current
> > > context of all the LSM module states attached to the current task and
> > > stores a pointer to it in *_context.
> >
> > Is this intended to be anything more than a copy of current->security?
>
> It has to be sufficient to fully effect security_push().
Which is why it requires an LSM interface. Just checking.
> > I assume that you're talking about the LSM specific data changing,
> > not the LSM itself.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If you change the task->security information you are definitly going
> > to change what other tasks can do to the calling task.
>
> I dealt with that in my current act-as patch. Under SELinux a task has two
> primary labels. One with which it is labelled and is used to govern effects
> upon it, and one that is used to act upon things and follows changes to the
> former.
The specification of your push interface that the push operation
not affect how others access the process is OK for SELinux, but
not for any other MAC scheme that I've dealt with, and I think
that's most of them. Nuts. Smack, for example, uses exactly one
label on the process for all purposes.
Are you concerned about accesses other than signals? Signals
could be staitforward to deal with in a pushed situation, but
I'd hesitate to say that the solution would generalize without
additional thought.
> > > (5) int security_xfrm_to_kernel_context(void *from, void **_to);
> >
> > Woof. What are you transforming from?
>
> In CacheFiles case, the cachefilesd daemon's security label into the label
> the
> cache driver acts as on behalf of other processes.
I'm not sure I understand what this is doing.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-13 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-10 16:04 [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching [try #3] David Howells
2007-08-10 16:04 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 01/16] FS-Cache: Release page->private after failed readahead " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 02/16] FS-Cache: Recruit a couple of page flags for cache management " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 03/16] FS-Cache: Provide an add_wait_queue_tail() function " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 04/16] FS-Cache: Generic filesystem caching facility " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 05/16] CacheFiles: Add missing copy_page export for ia64 " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 06/16] CacheFiles: Add a hook to write a single page of data to an inode " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 07/16] CacheFiles: Permit the page lock state to be monitored " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 08/16] CacheFiles: Export things for CacheFiles " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 09/16] CacheFiles: Permit a process's create SID to be overridden " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:52 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-10 16:52 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 10/16] CacheFiles: Add an act-as SID override in task_security_struct " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 11/16] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` [PATCH 12/16] CacheFiles: Get the SID under which the CacheFiles module should operate " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:05 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` [PATCH 13/16] CacheFiles: A cache that backs onto a mounted filesystem " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` [PATCH 14/16] NFS: Use local caching " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` [PATCH 15/16] NFS: Configuration and mount option changes to enable local caching on NFS " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` [PATCH 16/16] NFS: Display local caching state " David Howells
2007-08-10 16:06 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 22:13 ` [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching " Casey Schaufler
2007-08-10 22:13 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-11 8:41 ` David Howells
2007-08-11 8:41 ` David Howells
2007-08-11 8:41 ` David Howells
2007-08-11 15:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-11 15:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 10:54 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 10:54 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 10:54 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 13:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 13:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 13:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 14:51 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 14:51 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 14:51 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 14:57 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 14:57 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 14:57 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 15:22 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 15:22 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 15:22 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 16:20 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 16:20 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 16:31 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 16:31 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 16:31 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 16:58 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2007-08-13 16:58 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 16:58 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 19:52 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 19:52 ` David Howells
2007-08-13 21:44 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 21:44 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-14 9:39 ` David Howells
2007-08-14 9:39 ` David Howells
2007-08-14 9:39 ` David Howells
2007-08-14 15:53 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-14 15:53 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-14 17:42 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-14 17:42 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-14 17:42 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-15 16:30 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-15 16:30 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-15 16:30 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-14 17:58 ` David Howells
2007-08-14 17:58 ` David Howells
2007-08-14 17:58 ` David Howells
2007-08-14 17:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-14 17:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-14 17:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 15:42 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 15:42 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 15:42 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 13:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 13:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 13:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 15:10 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 15:10 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 15:10 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-13 13:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 13:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-13 13:01 ` Stephen Smalley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=959629.46851.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-cachefs@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nfsv4@linux-nfs.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=steved@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.