From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: ext4_has_free_blocks always checks cap_sys_resource and makes SELinux unhappy Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:28:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1224869312.3404.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1224860735.3404.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1224860899.9353.6.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, esandeen@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu, dwalsh@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Smalley Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1224860899.9353.6.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:08 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:05 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > Do others have thoughts? > > Seems similar to the vm_enough_memory() case, where we likewise > introduced a separate security hook that internally checks without > auditing. > > The OOM killer likewise ought to be using a non-auditing form of > capability checks. So would you suggest a generic non-auditing capability checking mechanism or a specific hook for "things to use" * capable_noaudit(current, cap) * security_capable_noaudit(current, cap) * security_cap_sys_resource(current) Looks like oom also checks CAP_SYS_ADMIN so maybe a generic cap interface would be best. esandeen: I still think it would be a good idea to simplify ext4_claim_free_blocks() and ext4_has_free_blocks() which seems to have a lot of code duplication and both have the unconditional capable calls... -Eric