Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750947AbdGMBQS (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:16:18 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:44190 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750718AbdGMBQR (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:16:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:15:54 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Stefan Berger Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, lkp@01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tycho@docker.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, christian.brauner@mailbox.org, amir73il@gmail.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces Message-ID: <20170713011554.xwmrgkzfwnibvgcu@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Stefan Berger , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, lkp@01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tycho@docker.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, christian.brauner@mailbox.org, amir73il@gmail.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com References: <1499785511-17192-1-git-send-email-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1499785511-17192-2-git-send-email-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87mv89iy7q.fsf@xmission.com> <20170712170346.GA17974@mail.hallyn.com> <877ezdgsey.fsf@xmission.com> <74664cc8-bc3e-75d6-5892-f8934404349f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74664cc8-bc3e-75d6-5892-f8934404349f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 686 Lines: 18 I'm really confused what problem that is trying to be solved, here, but it **feels** really, really wrong. Why do we need to store all of this state on a per-file basis, instead of some kind of per-file system or per-container data structure? And how many of these security.foo@uid=bar xattrs do you expect there to be? How many "foo", and how many "bar"? Maybe I missed the full write up, in which case please send me a link to the full writeup --- ideally in the form of a design doc that explains the problem statement, gives some examples of how it's going to be used, what were the other alternatives that were considered, and why they were rejected, etc. Thanks, - Ted