Re: [TOMOYO #9 (2.6.27-rc7-mm1) 1/6] LSM adapter functions.

Serge E. Hallyn
2008-10-06T16:55:37Z

Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@nttdata.co.jp):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Why can't you just clear the value during security_inode_foo()?
> We need a new hook for clearing the value since security_inode_*()
> are not always called after security_path_*() .

Heh, obviously you're right :)

So I'd recommend floating your security_path_clear() patch with a clear
description about the DAC-before-MAC property which you are maintaining.
Someone may come up with a better overall solution, but we're unlikely
to hear it until you try to push your patch.

-serge

> > Note I'm seeing this as a way for Tomoyo to temporarily (maybe) work
> > around the mis-placement of the security_path_foo() hooks. I don't want
> > to add security_path_clear() hooks to "legitimize" the workaround. I'd
> > rather Tomoyo and Apparmor folks keep looking for a better way to get
> > real DAC-before-MAC.
> Hmm, I can understand your opinion. The best way for AppArmor and
> TOMOYO is to pass vfsmount to vfs_*() and security_inode_*() . This
> approach has no DAC-before-MAC problem. However, it is clearly
> opposed by Al because of layering. So, we are going forward
> security_path_*() approach, which Al advised us.
>
> Since vfsmount is only available outside vfs_*() (and vfs_*() perform
> DAC), we cannot conceive another place now... Where do you think the
> right place to introduce security_path_*() hooks is?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html