From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Tony Jones <tonyj@suse.de>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
linux-security-module@wirex.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050826175952.GP7762@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050826173151.GA1350@immunix.com>
* Tony Jones (tonyj@suse.de) wrote:
> The discussion about composing with commoncap made me think about whether
> this is the best way to do this. It seems that we're heading towards a
> requirement that every module internally compose with commoncap.
Not a requirement, it's a choice ATM.
> If so (apart from the obvious correctness issues when they don't) it's work
> for each module and composing N of them under stacker obviously creates
> overhead.
>
> Would the following not be a better approach?
>
> static inline int security_ptrace (struct task_struct * parent, struct task_struct * child)
> {
> int ret;
> ret=cap_ptrace (parent, child);
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> if (!ret && security_ops->ptrace)
> ret=security_ops->ptrace(parent, child);
> #endif
> return ret;
> }
Heh, this was next on my list. I just wanted to separate the changes to
one at a time so we can easily measure the impact. This becomes another
policy shift.
> If every module is already internally composing, there shouldn't be a
> performance cost for the additional branch inside the #ifdef.
This needs measurement to verify.
> I havn't looked at every single hook and it's users to see if this would
> cause a problem. I noticed SELinux calls sec->capget() post rather than pre
> it's processing which may be an issue.
Yes, that need careful inspection.
thanks,
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-26 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-25 1:20 [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates Chris Wright
2005-08-25 1:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] Use capabilities as default w/ and w/out CONFIG_SECURITY Chris Wright
2005-08-25 1:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h Chris Wright
2005-08-26 17:31 ` Tony Jones
2005-08-26 17:59 ` Chris Wright [this message]
2005-08-26 18:03 ` Tony Jones
2005-08-26 18:00 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-08-26 18:08 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-26 18:11 ` Tony Jones
2005-08-25 1:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] Call security hooks conditionally if the security_op is filled out Chris Wright
2005-08-25 8:50 ` Kurt Garloff
2005-08-25 16:24 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 1:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] Remove unnecessary default capability callbacks Chris Wright
2005-08-25 1:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] Remove unnecesary capability hooks in rootplug Chris Wright
2005-08-25 14:38 ` serue
2005-08-25 15:13 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-08-25 16:21 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 16:23 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-08-25 17:06 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 21:13 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 16:28 ` serue
2005-08-25 21:12 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-31 6:34 ` Greg KH
2005-08-31 15:09 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 4:39 ` [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates James Morris
2005-08-25 5:32 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 19:15 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-26 9:23 ` serue
2005-08-26 13:27 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-08-26 10:30 ` serue
2005-08-26 16:41 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-26 17:35 ` serue
2005-08-26 17:49 ` Chris Wright
2005-08-25 9:52 ` serue
2005-08-25 10:18 ` serue
2005-08-25 16:19 ` Chris Wright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050826175952.GP7762@shell0.pdx.osdl.net \
--to=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@wirex.com \
--cc=tonyj@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox