On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 5:51 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:25 AM Stephen Smalley > <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:11 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:50 AM Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2/17/2020 4:14 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> We are primarily posting this RFC patch now so that the two different > > > > > >> approaches can be concretely compared. We anticipate a hybrid of the > > > > > >> two approaches being the likely outcome in the end. In particular > > > > > >> if support for allocating a separate inode for each of these files > > > > > >> is acceptable, then we would favor storing the security information > > > > > >> in the inode security blob and using it instead of the file security > > > > > >> blob. > > > > > > Bringing this back up in hopes of attracting some attention from the > > > > > > fs-devel crowd and Al. As Stephen already mentioned, from a SELinux > > > > > > perspective we would prefer to attach the security blob to the inode > > > > > > as opposed to the file struct; does anyone have any objections to > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay - been sick the past few days. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the inode is a better place than the file for information > > > > > about the inode. This is especially true for Smack, which uses > > > > > multiple extended attributes in some cases. I don't believe that any > > > > > except the access label will be relevant to anonymous inodes, but > > > > > I can imagine security modules with policies that would. > > > > > > > > > > I am always an advocate of full xattr support. It goes a long > > > > > way in reducing the number and complexity of special case interfaces. > > > > > > > > It sounds like we have broad consensus on using the inode to hold > > > > security information, implying that anon_inodes should create new > > > > inodes. Do any of the VFS people want to object? > > > > > > Ping? > > > > I'd recommend refreshing your patch series to incorporate feedback on > > the previous version and re-post, > > including viro and linux-fsdevel on the cc, and see if they have any > > comments on it. > > I don't think there's anything in the patch series that needs to > change right now. AFAICT, we're still just waiting on comment from the > VFS people, who should be on this thread. Did I miss something? There was some discussion on the SELinux bits in patch 2/3. I would take the silence on the vfs bits as implicit acceptance until you hear otherwise and just submit a v2 that addresses the SELinux bits.
