Re: LSM Patch Additions for CAPP (C2) Audit Trails

From: Serge E. Hallyn (hallynat_private)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2001 - 12:15:55 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: LSM Patch Additions for CAPP (C2) Audit Trails"

    I agree with your logic here, and during a hurried look while packing,
    it does look like I (for my own purposes) *would* be better off
    using the existing security_ops->bprm_ops->alloc_security(bprm) call
    at the bottom of prepare_binprm.
    
    I suspect I may have been the only person wanting the set_label()
    function in the first place.  If that is not the case, then someone
    please speak up.  Otherwise, if noone beats me to the punch, I'll
    offer a simple patch removing {re,}set_label when I get back from
    usenix.
    
    -serge
    
    > Some of your hook calls pass filenames provided by applications.  To
    > be fair, this was already true for the task set_label hook, but I also
    > question the need for that hook given the binprm security operations.
    > I would argue that the hooks should be passed the result of the kernel
    > lookup, i.e. the struct dentry (and vfsmount if you really need the
    > absolute pathname) or the struct file.  Otherwise, there is a race
    > condition between the module lookup of the pathname and the base
    > kernel lookup of the pathname, and the module must deal with things
    > like relative pathnames.
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 27 2001 - 12:17:27 PDT