On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:04:32PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Is there a reason that xfs_init_security() isn't called from the inode > allocation function (e.g. xfs_ialloc), as in ext4 (__ext4_new_inode > calls ext4_init_security and also calls ext4_init_acl)? That would have > ensured that tmpfile inodes would have been labeled without requiring a > separate change and more generally ensures complete coverage for all inodes. Really just code structuring - we don't like callouts to high level VFS functions from deep down in the guts of the filesystem. > For SELinux, we need the tmpfile inodes to be labeled at creation time, > not just if linked into the namespace, since they may be shared via > local socket IPC or inherited across a label-changing exec and since we > revalidate access on transfer or use. > > Labeling based on the provided directory could be a bit random, although > it will work out with current policy if the provided directory > corresponds to existing tmpfile locations (e.g. /tmp, /var/tmp) and > therefore already has a label associated with temporary files. > Otherwise we might want some indication that it is a tmpfile passed into > security_inode_init_security() so that we can always select a stable > label irrespective of the directory. Just check for I_LINKABLE in i_flags. -- 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
