From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Toshiharu Harada" Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:01:20 +0900 Message-ID: <9d732d950705250101x13351c59y4afc4748aa73264b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070412090809.917795000@suse.de> <200705232106.28260.agruen@suse.de> <200705241112.41101.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Andreas Gruenbacher" , "Al Viro" , jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, "Tony Jones" To: "James Morris" Return-path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.239]:53716 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753764AbXEYIBV (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 04:01:21 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so267016nzf for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 01:01:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi, 2007/5/24, James Morris : > I can restate my question and ask why you'd want a security policy like: > > Subject 'sysadmin' has: > read access to /etc/shadow > read/write access to /views/sysadmin/etc/shadow > > where the objects referenced by the paths are identical and visible to the > subject along both paths, in keeping with your description of "policy may > allow access to some locations but not to others" ? If I understand correctly, the original issue was whether to allow passing vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook or not. Which is independent from AA or "pathname based MAC", I think. It is proven that Linux can be used without that change,　however it is also clear that current LSM cause the ambiguities as AA people has explained. Clearing ambiguities is a obvious gain to Linux and will make benefits for auditing besides "pathname based MAC". So here's my opinion. If anybody can't explain clear reason (or needs) to keep these ambiguities unsolved,　we should consider to merge the proposal. Thanks. -- Toshiharu Harada haradats@gmail.com