Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): > Al, could you answer the following question? > > > The current Linux kernel is not designed to pass vfsmount parameter > that is crucial for pathname-based security including AppArmor and > TOMOYO Linux, to LSM. Though both projects have been proposing > patches to calculate pathname, none of them have been accepted as > you know. > > To find the reason for NACK, we examined past proposals and the > threads. And we came to understand that you oppose accessing vfsmount > inside vfs helper functions. Is our understanding correct? > > If our understanding is correct, we would like to propose a new > method that does not require modifications to vfs helper functions. > Attached patch is a trial of this method. > > vfs helper functions are surrounded by mnt_want_write() and > mnt_drop_write() pairs which receive "struct vfsmount" parameter I thought Al and others (Stephen?) had made it clear that the thing to do was add new lsm hooks there. So whereas inode_permission takes only an inode and ends up calling security_inode_permission, you would add a security_path_permission() or somesuch before or after the call to inode_permission(), where as you've noted the path is available. You're *close* to doing the right thing by having a helper who is called at the right place catch the vfsmount, but you refuse to send a patch doing exactly what has been suggested. -serge -- 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
