On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 06:38 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> --- "David P. Quigley" <dpquigl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > This patch set does two things. First it factors the section of vfs_setxattr
> > that does the real work into a helper function. This allows LSMs the ability
> > to
> > set the xattrs they need without hitting the permission check inside
> > vfs_setxattr each time.
>
> Why is this important? I'm perfectly willing to believe that it is,
> but I would hesitate to say that it's completely obvious to the
> casual observer. After all, we've gotten by with things the way they
> are for some time. Perhaps you could describe the use to which you
> would be putting this. I expect that if I go through the backlog
> discussions on or about this topic I could probably make some
> logical assumptions about what you want to do, but it will save
> everyone some time if you could spell it out here.
>
> > Second it introduces three new hooks
> > inode_{get,set}secctx, and inode_notifysecctx.
> >
> > The first hook retreives all security information the
> > LSM feels is relavent in the form of a security context. The second hook
> > given
> > this context can sets both the in-core and on-disk store for the particular
> > inode. The third hook is used to notify the in-core inode of a change to it's
> > security state.
>
> I still dislike having an interface that explicitly disallows
> security attribute integrity. That does not help me feel secure.
Which part of our prior explanations of this functionality didn't you
understand?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=120515271614741&w=2
I would agree though that the final patch submission ought to include
some of that prior explanation in its patch description for historical
purposes.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
