On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Provide a security hook which is called when xattrs of a file are being
> copied up. This hook is called once for each xattr and one can either
> accept or reject xattr. If 0 is returned, xattr will be copied up, if 1
> is returned, xattr will not be copied up and if negative error code
> is returned, copy up will be aborted.
>
> In SELinux, label of lower file is not copied up. File already has been
> set with right label at the time of creation and we don't want to overwrite
> that label.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c | 8 ++++++++
> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> include/linux/security.h | 10 ++++++++++
> security/security.c | 9 +++++++++
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
To continue the earlier feedback about mixing generic LSM hook
definitions with the SELinux specific hook implementations - I prefer
to see patchsets organized in the following manner:
[PATCH 1/X] - add new LSM hooks and the calls from the relevant
subsystems, e.g.
{security/security.c,include/linux/security.h,fs/overlayfs/*}
[PATCH 2/X] - LSM specific hook implementation, e.g. security/selinux/*
[PATCH n/X] - LSM specific hook implementation, e.g. security/smack/*
--
paul moore
security @ redhat
--
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
