From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov,
jmorris@nameil.org, morgan@kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com,
esandeen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:46:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200810301246.20328.paul.moore@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081030152940.GA24853@us.ibm.com>
On Thursday 30 October 2008 11:29:40 am Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> > Add a new capable interface that will be used by systems that use
> > audit to make an A or B type decision instead of a security
> > decision. Currently this is the case at least for filesystems when
> > deciding if a process can use the reserved 'root' blocks and for
> > the case of things like the oom algorithm determining if processes
> > are root processes and should be less likely to be killed. These
> > types of security system requests should not be audited or logged
> > since they are not really security decisions. It would be possible
> > to solve this problem like the vm_enough_memory security check did
> > by creating a new LSM interface and moving all of the policy into
> > that interface but proves the needlessly bloat the LSM and provide
> > complex indirection.
> >
> > This merely allows those decisions to be made where they belong and
> > to not flood logs or printk with denials for thing that are not
> > security decisions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
>
> Please introduce some meaningful defines instead of passing 0 and 1.
> I.e.
>
> #define CAP_NOAUDIT 0
> #define CAP_AUDIT 1
>
> Otherwise, looks fine.
As a general rule aren't boolean arguments like this frowned upon, with
variations on the function preferred, i.e. something like below?
int cap_capable(struct task_struct *tsk, int cap);
int cap_capable_audit(struct task_struct *tsk, int cap);
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-30 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-29 19:06 [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface Eric Paris
2008-10-29 19:06 ` [PATCH -v1 2/3] vm: use new has_capability_noaudit Eric Paris
2008-10-29 19:15 ` Stephen Smalley
2008-10-29 19:57 ` Eric Paris
2008-10-29 19:07 ` [PATCH -v1 3/3] filesystems: use has_capability_noaudit interface for reserved blocks checks Eric Paris
2008-10-30 15:29 ` [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface Serge E. Hallyn
2008-10-30 16:46 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2008-10-30 17:17 ` Eric Paris
2008-10-30 17:29 ` Paul Moore
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=200810301246.20328.paul.moore@hp.com \
--to=paul.moore@hp.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=esandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@nameil.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
/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