On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 04:46 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> [I'm still not sure what selinux want to do. normally inode_permission() > >> should check truncate() permission, and this FILE__SIZE checks something > >> again...? And we want to check FILE__WRITE for ATTR_[AMC]TIME?] > > > > Explicit setting of mode, owner, group, or timestamps is to be checked > > by the setattr permission, while implicit setting of timestamps or size > > is mediated by the write permission. > > E.g. mode change has implicit ATTR_CTIME change. So it meant, we should > check the both of FILE__SETATTR and FILE__WRITE? No, just setattr. > > ATTR_FORCE is supposed to suppress permission checking altogether, and > > shouldn't be mixed with multiple attribute changes if some should be > > subject to permission checks while others should not. > > I disagree. In fact, ATTR_FORCE is just used for ATTR_KILL_S[UG]ID, and > notify_change() is disallowing the mixed ATTR_MODE and ATTR_KILL_*. I > think it should be enough. Ok, then we just need to adjust selinux_inode_setattr to understand that ATTR_FORCE only means to bypass checking on ATTR_MODE. > If ATTR_FORCE is confusable, I think we can just add new ATTR_FORCE_MODE > or ATTR_FORCE_KILL, and replace with current ATTR_FORCE. I'm ok either > way. But, with this change, ATTR_FORCE has no users. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- 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
