Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932923AbdCURpP (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:45:15 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:42160 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752625AbdCURpG (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:45:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:45:04 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jan Kara Cc: Amir Goldstein , Filip =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtkcm9uc2vDvQ==?= , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel , Alexander Viro , Marko Rauhamaa Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] fanotify: emit FAN_MODIFY_DIR on filesystem changes Message-ID: <20170321174504.GB17872@fieldses.org> References: <20170319101943.GA1844@quack2.suse.cz> <20170321153849.GA15402@fieldses.org> <20170321164122.GA18402@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170321164122.GA18402@quack2.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1303 Lines: 29 On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 21-03-17 11:38:49, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 14-03-17 13:18:01, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Filip Štědronský wrote: > > > > > An alternative might be to create wrapper functions like > > > > > vfs_path_(rename|unlink|...). They could also take care of calling > > > > > security_path_(rename|unlink|...), which is currently also up to > > > > > the indvidual callers (possibly with a flag because it might not > > > > > be always desired). > > > > > > > > That's an interesting idea. There is some duplicity between security/audit > > > > hook and fsnotify hooks. It should be interesting to try and deduplicate > > > > some of this code. > > > > > > Yeah, but ecryptfs or nfsd don't actually call these security hooks AFAICT. > > > > We don't? E.g. nfsd_unlink calls vfs_unlink which calls > > security_inode_unlink(). > > OK, I have not been specific enough :). ecryptfs or nfsd don't call *path* > security hooks AFAICT - e.g. security_path_unlink() from nfsd_unlink(). Oh, got it, thanks. But, no, nfsd is definitely is not meant to be invisible to security modules, so that's just a bug. --b.