On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:10, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>Any idea if security identifiers change with each syscall? > >> > >>If not, a lot of the xxx_secure syscalls could go away... > > > > None of them can go away. > > > > Security identifiers are for the operation you perform. For example > > open_secure() is so that you can specify the security context for a new > > file that you are creating. connect_secure() is used to specify the > > security context of the socket you want to connect to. In the default > > setup the only way that connect_secure() and open_secure() can use the > > same SID is for unix domain sockets (which are labeled with file types). > > A TCP connection will be to a process, the SID of a process is not a > > valid type label for a file. > > > > lstat_secure(), recv_secure() and others are used to retrieve the > > security context of the file, network message, etc. > > What specific information differs per-operation, such that security > identifiers cannot be stored internally inside a file handle? My previous message obviously wasn't clear enough. When you want to read or set the SID of a file handle then you need to pass in a SID pointer or a SID. This is what the *_secure() system calls do, they set a SID or read a SID. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page _______________________________________________ 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 : Thu Oct 17 2002 - 14:46:22 PDT