On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Emily Ratliff wrote: > The BOF started off with Robert Wilson talking about his TrustedBSD > project. Amon Ott spoke about RSBAC. Peter Loscocco spoke about SELinux That's Robert Watson of TrustedBSD. But he is quite flexible and probably wouldn't object to being called Robert Wilson. > - The question of whether compatibilities should be a module came up but > was not really discussed. That's capabilities, not compatibilities. > - Stephen Smalley brought up the issue of duplication of some of the > hooks. For instance, some code paths call two separate LSM hooks. One > example of this is the hook at attach_pathlabel and at the inode level. > Stephen felt that this would be frowned on by the kernel developers. For example, vfs_mkdir calls the post_mkdir LSM hook for assigning labels to newly created directories, and sys_mkdir calls the attach_pathlabel LSM hook for the same purpose. The problem is that the DTE project wants the vfsmount, which is only available in the sys_mkdir, in order to reconstruct the absolute pathname, whereas we are ok with just the dentry/inode and want to ensure that the assignment occurs on every directory creation, so we would prefer it to happen in vfs_mkdir. I'm thinking that we can eliminate the attach_pathlabel hook calls in these situations, following Doug's suggestion for modules that use implicit attribute assignments, and that we can even push down some of the other attach_pathlabel hook calls to shadow lower-level i_op->lookup calls. I would like to minimize any hook dependencies on vfsmounts. -- Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs ssmalleyat_private _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Jul 02 2001 - 13:35:32 PDT