On 08/26/2015 10:15 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:48:38AM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
This is a partial revert of commit d7f0b70d30ffb9bbe6b8a3e1035cf0b79965ef53
("UBIFS: Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS").
Hi Richard,
What about a full reverting of this commit. In ubifs, we
*can* support any namespace of xattr including user, trusted, security
or other anyone prefixed by any words. But we have a check_namespace()
in xattr.c to limit what we want to support. That said, if we want to
"Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS", what we need to do is
just extending the check_namespace() to allow security namespace pass.
And yes, check_namespace() have been supporting security namespace.
Is this good enough? Yes, it'd mean that the xattrs end up on disk, but
then who's responsible for invoking the selected LSMs inode_init_security() hooks?
AFAICT, we'd still need to invoke security_inode_init_security for newly
created inodes (which, Richard's proposed commit still does).
OH, right. My bad!!!! I missed the security_inode_init_security().
Besides to allow security.* prefix in xattr, we still need to call
security_inode_init_security() in ubifs_create(). That's true.
So what we need to remove is only the ubifs_xattr_handlers.
Thanx Josh, you are right.
And Richard, sorry for my bad mind.
Reviewed-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanx
Yang
Thanks,
Josh (who, admittedly, is neither a filesystem nor security module guy :)
--
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
