Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting david safford (safford@watson.ibm.com):
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >  int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask)
> > >  {
> > > -	return inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > +	int retval;
> > > +
> > > +	retval = inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > +	if (retval)
> > > +		return retval;
> > > +	return integrity_inode_permission(NULL, &nd->path,
> > > +					  mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> > > +						  MAY_EXEC));
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > > @@ -306,7 +314,14 @@ int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask)
> > >   */
> > >  int file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
> > >  {
> > > -	return inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > +	int retval;
> > > +
> > > +	retval = inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> > > +	if (retval)
> > > +		return retval;
> > > +	return integrity_inode_permission(file, NULL,
> > > +					  mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> > > +						  MAY_EXEC));
> > 
> > Please don't add anything here as these two wrappers will go away.
> > Please only make decisions based on what you get in inode_permission().
> 
> Hmm... As Mimi mentioned in the last review, we really need access
> to a path, which is not available in inode_permission. (Note the
> path is not used to make any integrity decision, but is recorded along
> with the measurement to help with the integrity analysis by a third
> party verifier.) Yes, there are other callers without path information,
> but getting a path here covers the bulk of the measurements.
> 
> Is there some other alternative, other than this, or passing the 
> dentry into inode_permission, which was also rejected?

Whatever happened to the patch Mimi had floated to use the audit
subsystem to output a pathname?  I thought that was pretty neat,
and it made particularly clear the the pathname was purely
informational.

-serge