In-Reply-To: <20070220165824.GA31315@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
To: serue@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       kjhall@linux.vnet.ibm.com, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       David Safford <safford@watson.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slim: move file revocation into file_table.c and mprotect.c
Message-ID: <OF8F16AF17.D3D928C1-ON8525728B.004D777E-8525728B.006512C6@us.ibm.com>
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:13:06 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1172
Lines: 28

serue@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 02/20/2007 11:58:24 AM:

> Here is a attempt at resolving some of the complaints against the
> slim security module.  The file revocation is perceived as too 
> intrusive to live in a security module itself, so it is moved into
> file_table.c.
> 
> This patch retains the explicit file->f_mode tweaking to revoke
> FMODE_WRITE.  That can be removed by using an approach like Pekka's
> revokefs, using files in the revokefs filesystem with ->read() passed
> through to the original file, but ->write() intercepted.
> 
> Comments greatly appreciated.

I've tested the patch with slim.  The patch has been up and running
on my system for a couple of weeks now, and it seems to be working 
just fine.  Is the approach acceptable?  On the assumption that it 
is, how should we go forward with it?  Can it get a test run in -mm?
If not, what would be a more acceptable approach?

Thanks!

Mimi Zohar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/