Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754013AbZG0Ses (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:34:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753585AbZG0Ser (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:34:47 -0400 Received: from sca-es-mail-2.Sun.COM ([192.18.43.133]:58083 "EHLO sca-es-mail-2.sun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752230AbZG0Seq (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:34:46 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:33:54 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches In-reply-to: <20090725002916.GB13556@shareable.org> To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@dmesg.printk.net, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, greg@kroah.com, jcm@redhat.com, douglas.leeder@sophos.com, tytso@mit.edu, arjan@infradead.org, david@lang.hm, jengelh@medozas.de, aviro@redhat.com, mrkafk@gmail.com, alexl@redhat.com, jack@suse.cz, tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, hch@infradead.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, mmorley@hcl.in, pavel@suse.cz Message-id: <20090727183354.GM4231@webber.adilger.int> X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 References: <1248466429.3567.82.camel@localhost> <20090724224813.GK27755@shareable.org> <1248479367.3567.133.camel@localhost> <20090725002916.GB13556@shareable.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1378 Lines: 32 On Jul 25, 2009 01:29 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Eric Paris wrote: > > But maybe I should jsut do the 'if you have fanotify open, you don't > > create other fanotify events'... so everyone gets what they expect... > > O_NONOTIFY. Similar security concerns, more control. > > The security concern is clear: If you allow a process with fanotify > open to not create events, then any (root) process can open a fanotify > socket to hide it's behaviour. I think the "fanotify doesn't generate more fanotify events" makes the most sense. Given that the open will be done in the kernel specifically due to fanotify, this doesn't actually allow the listener to open files without detection (unlike the "O_NONOTIFY" flag would). The fanotify "opens" would only be in response to other processes opening the file. It might also make sense to verify that the process doing the open has at least permission to open the file in question (i.e. root) so that some unauthorized process cannot just get file handles to arbitrary files. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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/