Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763601AbXEYU2K (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 16:28:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755162AbXEYU14 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 16:27:56 -0400 Received: from web36609.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.26]:31963 "HELO web36609.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754671AbXEYU1z (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 16:27:55 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: HYBv9awVM1kDWO6gFkIfiGuM.AXQ4HLf8I6cX11T3cNiw2v2E3ByD1W1BoJ0OGuVaFlMjAYQwA-- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:27:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200705252200.21765.agruen@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <312681.33492.qm@web36609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1453 Lines: 39 --- Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Friday 25 May 2007 19:43, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > [...] but the AppArmor code could certainly check for that in exec by > > enforcing the argv[0] convention. It would be perfectly reasonable for a > > system that is so dependent on pathnames to require that. > > Hmm ... that's a strange idea. Yeah, I get that a lot. > AppArmor cannot assume anything about argv[0], > > and it would be a really bad idea to change the well-established semantics of > > argv[0]. > > There is no actual need for looking at argv[0], though: AppArmor decides > based > on the actual pathname of the executable... Right. My point was that if you wanted to use the gzip/gunzip example of a file with two names being treated differently based on the name accessed as an argument for AppArmor you could. If you don't want to, that's ok too. Jeremy raised a reasonable objection, and AppArmor could address it if y'all chose to do so. I seriously doubt that enforcing the argv[0] convention would break much, and I also expect that if it did there's a Consultant's Retirement to be made fixing the security hole it points out. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com - 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/