Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756583AbYJWSAx (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:00:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754350AbYJWSAi (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:00:38 -0400 Received: from serrano.cc.columbia.edu ([128.59.29.6]:55022 "EHLO serrano.cc.columbia.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754216AbYJWSAg (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:00:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4900BB0E.9000303@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:57:34 -0400 From: Shaya Potter User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: crispin@crispincowan.com CC: Kentaro Takeda , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Chris Wright , "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Toshiharu Harada , Andrew Morton , Tetsuo Handa , Al Viro , Christoph Hellwig , Casey Schaufler Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #11 (linux-next) 01/11] Introduce new LSM hooks where vfsmount is available. References: <20081020073423.024299308@nttdata.co.jp> <20081020073643.986810046@nttdata.co.jp> <48FC7938.1070906@cs.columbia.edu> <20081020193428.8k6ottvjfc1woscw@webmail8.dotsterhost.com> <48FCF6CA.2060406@cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: <48FCF6CA.2060406@cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-No-Spam-Score: Local Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 36 Shaya Potter wrote: > crispin@crispincowan.com wrote: >> Quoting Shaya Potter : >>> I know I'm late to the game in this, but as I recently asked about this >>> and didn't get an answer, I'll re-ask my approach. >>> >>> Why can't you do this >>> >>> in lookup() >>> >>> - resolve rules (not for single process, but for all processes) for >>> said path and tag dentry (seem to already have a hook) >>> >>> in permission() >> >> Because it doesn't work >> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-fsdevel/2007/6/8/319446 >> >> Quick summary: The difference between the pathname model and the label >> model is dynamism. The accessi really is determined by the pathname to >> the file that you used to access the file. If you try to compute >> access based on attributes tagged onto the file, then you have to >> re-compute those attributes every time someone renames a file. > > ok. simple question then so why not just recompute them every every > rename? are rename's that common relative to all other file operations > where we care? just want to followup as didn't get a response. If the problem is rename(), what's the problem with dropping the label on rename() to force a reevaluation on the next pass through the lookup() code. -- 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/