On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 21-03-17 11:38:49, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 14-03-17 13:18:01, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Filip Štědronský <r.lklm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > An alternative might be to create wrapper functions like > > > > > vfs_path_(rename|unlink|...). They could also take care of calling > > > > > security_path_(rename|unlink|...), which is currently also up to > > > > > the indvidual callers (possibly with a flag because it might not > > > > > be always desired). > > > > > > > > That's an interesting idea. There is some duplicity between security/audit > > > > hook and fsnotify hooks. It should be interesting to try and deduplicate > > > > some of this code. > > > > > > Yeah, but ecryptfs or nfsd don't actually call these security hooks AFAICT. > > > > We don't? E.g. nfsd_unlink calls vfs_unlink which calls > > security_inode_unlink(). > > OK, I have not been specific enough :). ecryptfs or nfsd don't call *path* > security hooks AFAICT - e.g. security_path_unlink() from nfsd_unlink(). Oh, got it, thanks. But, no, nfsd is definitely is not meant to be invisible to security modules, so that's just a bug. --b.
