Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] SLIM main patch

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

Quoting Dave Hansen (haveblue@us.ibm.com):
> > +static void revoke_file_wperm(struct slm_file_xattr *cur_level)
> > +{
> > +	int i, j = 0;
> > +	struct files_struct *files = current->files;
> > +	unsigned long fd = 0;
> > +	struct fdtable *fdt;
> > +	struct file *file;
> > +
> > +	if (!files || !cur_level)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > +	fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> > +
> > +	for (;;) {
> > +		i =j * __NFDBITS;
> > +		if ( i>= fdt->max_fdset || i >= fdt->max_fds)
> > +			break;
> > +		fd = fdt->open_fds->fds_bits[j++];
> > +		while(fd) {
> > +			if (fd & 1) {
> > +				file = fdt->fd[i++];
> > +				if (file && file->f_dentry)
> > +					do_revoke_file_wperm(file, cur_level);
> > +			}
> > +			fd >>= 1;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > +}
> 
> This is an awfully ugly function ;)
> 
> Instead of actually walking the fd table and revoking permissions, would
> doing a hook in generic_write_permission() help?  It might be easier to
> switch back and forth.

Or, would using security_file_permission(), which is called on each read
and write to an open file, suffice?  Would it perform as well as this
way?

-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/