On 04/15/2014 04:04 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 04/15/2014 01:50 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:18:24PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>>> + error = xfs_init_security(inode, dir, &dentry->d_name);
>>> + if (unlikely(error)) {
>>> + iput(inode);
>>> + return -error;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> d_tmpfile(dentry, inode);
>>>
>>
>> I'd really love to hear from the LSM people who they plan to deal with
>> O_TMPFILE inodes. But given that this seems to fix a real life bug
>> let's go with it for now.
>
> Is there a reason that xfs_init_security() isn't called from the inode
> allocation function (e.g. xfs_ialloc), as in ext4 (__ext4_new_inode
> calls ext4_init_security and also calls ext4_init_acl)? That would have
> ensured that tmpfile inodes would have been labeled without requiring a
> separate change and more generally ensures complete coverage for all inodes.
>
> For SELinux, we need the tmpfile inodes to be labeled at creation time,
> not just if linked into the namespace, since they may be shared via
> local socket IPC or inherited across a label-changing exec and since we
> revalidate access on transfer or use.
>
> Labeling based on the provided directory could be a bit random, although
> it will work out with current policy if the provided directory
> corresponds to existing tmpfile locations (e.g. /tmp, /var/tmp) and
> therefore already has a label associated with temporary files.
> Otherwise we might want some indication that it is a tmpfile passed into
> security_inode_init_security() so that we can always select a stable
> label irrespective of the directory.
Hmm...wondering if we can use the qstr as a distinguisher; pass NULL for
tmpfile and not for others as in ext4?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
