Hello.
> Maybe some enhancement to the 'intent' structure with a similar
> effect could be done instead.
>
> Then you could, presumably, put a security hook somewhere in
> link_path_walk for those modules (like AppArmor) which want to do
> checks based on the namespace.
I think link_path_walk() is not a good place to insert new LSM hooks
for pathname based access control (AppArmor and TOMOYO) purpose because
(1) The kernel don't know what operation (open/create/truncate etc.) will be
done at the moment of link_path_walk().
(2) Not all operations call link_path_walk() before these operations
are done. For example, ftruncate() doesn't call link_path_walk().
(3) The rename() and link() operations handle two pathnames.
But, it is not possible to know both pathnames at the moment of
link_path_walk().
I think we need to introduce new LSM hooks outside link_path_walk().
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-fsdevel/2008/2/17/882024
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
