BUG: ACL's are a security attribute. They belong in the Security attrib space, not the Root-attrib space.

BUG: ACL's are a security attribute. They belong in the Security attrib space, not the Root-attrib space.

[Linda Walsh]

Currently there are 3 disjoint attribute spaces on files -- user, root and security.

(there is a misprint in the manual that says there is 2, but later, it gives
talks about using no switch giving the User attrib space, -R for Root attrib
space, and -S for the Security attrib space).


Of these, the ACL's are being placed in the root, which might describe
file types, or other OS related info, but not security attributes like ACL's.
They should be in the Security attrib space (otherwise what is the point of a
Security attribute space).

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: BUG: ACL's are a security attribute. They belong in the Security attrib space, not the Root-attrib space.

[Dave Chinner]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:29:42PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> 
> Currently there are 3 disjoint attribute spaces on files -- user, root and security.
> 
> (there is a misprint in the manual that says there is 2, but later, it gives
> talks about using no switch giving the User attrib space, -R for Root attrib
> space, and -S for the Security attrib space).

You're confusing on-disk formats used to store attributes with
namepaces used to report and access them.  Linux has security,
system, trusted and user namespaces, while on disk XFS has "root",
"secure",  and "user" spaces.

i.e.

Linux attr	XFS on disk
system		root
security	secure
trusted		root
user		user

> Of these, the ACL's are being placed in the root, which might describe
> file types, or other OS related info, but not security attributes like ACL's.
> They should be in the Security attrib space (otherwise what is the point of a
> Security attribute space).

Posix ACLS are defined by the *kernel* to be in the "system"
namespace:

#define POSIX_ACL_XATTR_ACCESS  "system.posix_acl_access"
#define POSIX_ACL_XATTR_DEFAULT "system.posix_acl_default"

IOWs, the Linux *kernel* doesn't consider ACLs to be part of the
security namespace, and so neither does XFS.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: BUG: ACL's are a security attribute. They belong in the Security attrib space, not the Root-attrib space.

[Linda Walsh]

Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:29:42PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> > Currently there are 3 disjoint attribute spaces on files -- user, root and security.
> >
> > (there is a misprint in the manual that says there is 2, but later, it gives
> > talks about using no switch giving the User attrib space, -R for Root attrib
> > space, and -S for the Security attrib space).
>
> You're confusing on-disk formats used to store attributes with
> namepaces used to report and access them.  Linux has security,
> system, trusted and user namespaces, while on disk XFS has "root",
> "secure",  and "user" spaces.
>
> i.e.
>
> Linux attr    XFS on disk
> system        root
> security    secure
> trusted        root
> user        user
-----
    That makes the man page even more dated...

Why don't we copy your explanation into the manpage!  It's certainly
more clear! ;-)


>
> > Of these, the ACL's are being placed in the root, which might describe
> > file types, or other OS related info, but not security attributes like ACL's.
> > They should be in the Security attrib space (otherwise what is the point of a
> > Security attribute space).
>
> Posix ACLS are defined by the *kernel* to be in the "system"
> namespace:
----
    Likely because the system namespace predates the secur[e/ity] namespace,
which seems like it might have been the timeframe that part in the "attr" manpage,
saying there were only 2 namespaces, was written?

>
> #define POSIX_ACL_XATTR_ACCESS  "system.posix_acl_access"
> #define POSIX_ACL_XATTR_DEFAULT "system.posix_acl_default"
>
> IOWs, the Linux *kernel* doesn't consider ACLs to be part of the
> security namespace, and so neither does XFS.
-----
    Well, of the kernel I can understand why ... and then it
makes sense that XFS would have followed the kernel through its
evolution...;-)

So that still leaves the Q's about the -l (--list) function no longer
being maitained, and the suggested alternates having no similar functionality
nor any for the 'root' or 'secur' namespaces.

Maybe not important, but sometimes linux security looks a bit like it is
partaking of
security through obscurity...or it could just be generally obscure engineer
writing...;-)







_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs