Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756204AbXHIR7i (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:59:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753239AbXHIR72 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:59:28 -0400 Received: from web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.22]:32082 "HELO web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752567AbXHIR71 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:59:27 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: aLq8HGMVM1niMzOcVkE9Yktwl8Bw6B6oLeiCbjyKYqhBXIqwz2yoOdviDSHWeajMLqAf7__0Gw-- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:59:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2] To: Stephen Smalley , casey@schaufler-ca.com Cc: David Howells , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, steved@redhat.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1186680124.6916.624.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <803922.51849.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1658 Lines: 40 --- Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 10:07 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > --- David Howells wrote: > > > > > Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained by the CacheFiles module. > This > > > is > > > then used as the SID with which files and directories will be created in > the > > > cache. > > > > This is SELinux specific functionality. It should not be an LSM > > interface. > > Odd, you proposed exactly the same hook (aside from naming convention > and secid as argument vs. as retval) in recent postings on linux-audit > and selinux list for use by the audit system. And that's exposing SELinux specific functionality too. And I don't like the fact that the audit system already requires a secid interface. The audit system, however, does not use the secid for anything other than a handle that gets passed around and eventually used to get the data that goes into the audit record. It's annoying, but harmless and does not affect any access control decisions. The change proposed here would use the secid in access control decisions. The LSM interface ought not to be exposing module specific internal data structures. My work on pulling selinux code out of audit left the secid interface in place. You're right in that audit should get fixed. I had been hoping to make that a phase II activity. 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/