On 04/16/2014 10:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 08:51:38AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> Maybe I spoke too soon. IIUC, I_LINKABLE doesn't necessarily >> distinguish tmpfiles from other files, as some tmpfiles may be linkable >> and others not. But what we want is a way to identify all tmpfiles when >> security_inode_init_security() is called if we are going to label them >> independently of the provided dir. > > Oh, right. If O_EXCL is specified (another annoying overload of the > flag..) the tmpfile can't ever be linked back into the filesystem > and thus doesn't have I_LINKABLE set. > > I guess the best way to fix this is using the magic qstr you suggested > before. That means security_inode_init_security would need to be > called after d_tmpfile, which most filesystems don't do right now. I think one could just pass NULL for the qstr as an indicator, which ext4 already does, so it doesn't require moving after d_tmpfile) IIUC. However, that doesn't solve the problem for security_inode_create(), which also needs to know it is dealing with a tmpfile. So we might want to just pass an explicit flag to both. -- 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
