From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:02:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20070205190230.GA23104@infradead.org> References: <20070205182213.12164.40927.sendpatchset@ermintrude.int.wirex.com> <20070205184410.GA20672@infradead.org> <1170701906.5934.41.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Tony Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, agruen@suse.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1170701906.5934.41.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:58:26AM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 18:44 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Just FYI: Al was very opposed to the idea of passing the vfsmount to > > the vfs_ helpers, so you should discuss this with him. > > > > Looking at the actual patches I see you're lazy in a lot of places. > > Please make sure that when you introduce a vfsmount argument somewhere > > that it is _always_ passed and not just when it's conveniant. Yes, that's > > more work, but then again if you're not consistant anyone half-serious > > will laught at a security model using this infrasturcture. > > nfsd in particular tends to be a bit lazy about passing around vfsmount > info. Forcing it to do so should not be hard since the vfsmount is > already cached in the "struct export" (which can be found using the > filehandle). It will take a bit of re-engineering in order to pass that > information around inside the nfsd code, though. I actually have a patch to fix that. It's part of a bigger series that's not quite ready, but I hope to finish all of it this month. > Note also that it might be nice to enforce the vfsmount argument by > replacing the existing dentry parameters with a struct path instead of > adding an extra reference to the vfsmount to existing functions. That definitly sounds like a good idea, independent of whether we want to pass the vfsmount in more places or not.