From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ima: policy search speedup Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:07:22 -0500 Message-ID: <1355252842.2356.137.camel@falcor> References: <1355234914.2356.85.camel@falcor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Kasatkin, Dmitry" , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , LSM List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , James Morris To: Eric Paris Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 13:09 -0500, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > And your "pseudo-filesystems" argument is pretty stupid too, since WE > > ALREADY HAVE A FLAG FOR THAT! > > > > Guess where it is? Oh, it's in the place I already mentioned makes > > more sense. Look for S_PRIVATE in inode->i_flags, and IS_PRIVATE() in > > users. It's what the other security models already use to avoid > > bothering calling down to the security layers. The fact that the > > integrity layer bypasses the normal security layer in > > ima_file_check(), for example, is no excuse to then make up totally > > new flags. > > IS_PRIVATE() is not used by and darn well better not be used by, all > psuedo filesystems like procfs which IMA may want to ignore. LSMs > like to do control on them. I thought S_PRIVATE was really only used > by the anon_inode and reiserfs's really crazy ass internal inodes. I > could always be wrong. I was actually wondering about the MS_NOSEC flag. It's currently being used by fuse, gfs2, ocfs2 and tmpfs. (Not sure about xfs.) Can someone explain what it is being used for? thanks, Mimi