Re: Are path-based LSM hooks called from the wrong places?

[David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>]

Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> If you start from inode (or dentry, for that matter), you don't *have*
> a pathname at all.

When I'm starting from a dentry, I do have a vfsmount as well - it's just that
vfs_mkdir() or whatever doesn't currently take it (which is perhaps reasonable
as NFSD and eCryptFS might not have it available).

> The real question is, do you want these checks to apply and if you do -
> which path do you want to use (esp. if you have multiple namespaces)?

The path to be used is straightforward: I do, after all, have a vfsmount, and
that plus dentry is all that is required for security_path_*() - which seems
slightly odd since it takes no account of chroot(), but that's probably fine.

As to whether these checks should be applied...  The SELinux ones need to be,
so I'd've thought the same would be true for TOMOYO.

Seems I might need to split such as sys_mkdirat() to separate the path lookup
from the security checks:-/

As I said, what I don't want to have to do is attempt to regenerate the full
pathname, especially if the pathname isn't accessible from within the current
process's chroot or namespace.

David