From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Overlayfs: Use copy-up security hooks Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:05:40 +0000 Message-ID: <3148.1415397940@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <4109261.WfcAOoSvNG@sifl> <20141105154217.2555.578.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20141105154238.2555.85960.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4109261.WfcAOoSvNG@sifl> Content-ID: <3147.1415397940.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Moore Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Paul Moore wrote: > So the LSM must modify the xattr in place? I suppose that since the @value > is allocated to the max size it shouldn't be a problem. Just checking ... ... And the caller must provide a maximally sized buffer (which it likely has to allocate anyway). I'm not sure I really need to provide the modification thing. I suspect a binary keep or discard decision is sufficient. David