Re: [RFC] The reflink(2) system call v4.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 14 May 2009, Stephen Smalley wrote:

> And you can likely make preserve_security a simple bool (set from some
> caller-provided flag) rather than an int.  At which point the SELinux
> wiring for the new hook would be something like this:
> 
> If we are preserving security attributes on the reflink, then treat it
> like creating a link to an existing file;

Do we also need to somewhat consider it like a new file? e.g. in the case 
of create_sid being set (if different to the existing security attribute), 
I believe we need to fail the operation because security attributes are 
not preserved, and also decide which error code to return (the user may be 
confused if it's EACCES -- EINVAL might be better).  Similar for reflinks 
on a context mounted file system, although create_sid needs to be checked 
during inode instantiation (unless we, say, add set a preserve_sid flag 
which overrides create_sid and is cleared upon use).


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux