On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 17:16 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Stephen Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Unless there is some benefit to setting a ->fssid and checking against
> > it (e.g. safeguarding the module against unintentional internal access),
> > I think the task flag approach is preferable.
>
> Well, I think the use of ->fssid is simpler and faster from an implementation
> standpoint (see the attached patch), and it can always be used for such as the
> in-kernel nfsd later.
>
> The way I've done it in this patch is to have ->fssid shadow ->sid as long as
> they're the same. But ->fssid can be set to something else and then later
> reset, at which point it becomes the same as ->sid again. A hook is provided
> to perform both of these operations:
>
> security_set_fssid(overriding_SID); //set
> ...
> security_set_fssid(SECSID_NULL); //reset
>
> The rest of the patch is that more or less anywhere ->sid is used to represent
> a process as an actor, this is replaced with ->fssid. This part requires no
> conditional jumps. It becomes a bit tricky around execve() time, but I think
> it's reasonable to ignore that as execve() is unlikely to happen in an
> overridden context; or maybe the execve() related ops should be failed if
> ->sid != ->fssid.
>
> Do you think this is reasonable? Or do you definitely want me to use the
> suppression flag approach instead?
Just why are you doing all this? Why do we need a back-end that requires
all this extra client-side security infrastructure in order to work?
IOW: What is wrong with the existing CacheFS?
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
