Re: handling exec_permission_lite

Previous message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"
Next in thread: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

chrisat_private

* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Chris Wright wrote:
> 
> > There is still the issue that the capable() hook can sleep.  We can't
> > distinguish these capable() calls, and in SELinux, for example, capable()
> > could call task_alloc_security() which could sleep (unless I'm misreading
> > the code).  Placing the proposed permission_lite() hook ahead of the DAC
> > checks could fix this, but it would be out of sync with the rest of the
> > LSM hooks where placement is intended to be after DAC checks.
> 
> True, but that's a module problem.

Hrmph...conceptually this argument applies to placing a standard
permission() hook in exec_permission_lite().  The only fundamental
difference is the likelihood of trouble wrt. dcache lock.

Unless there's a better alternative, I'll commit the permission_lite()
hook later today.

cheers,
-chris
_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module