> > In fact, my experiments show the opposite to be true. Adding a > > security_task_lookup() call in proc_pid_lookup() causes > > ls /proc/1 to improperly succeed once it has properly for some other > > process. The task_to_inode + inode_permission check always worked. > > Ah, yeah. You're getting bit by a cached lookup. I expect ls -d would > pass that check (it'll need inode_getattr support). Correct on both counts - "ls -d" was incorrectly allowed, and is correctly denied when I add a inode_getattr check. So as you also mentioned, properly hiding the existence of these processes would require: inode_permission inode_getattr inode_getxattr sb_statfs and maybe some others. Do we want to provide a simpler, one-step way of achieving this? Perhaps through a macro, or doubling up task_lookup with those other checks (yuck)? Or just documentation? thanks, -serge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Aug 17 2004 - 08:27:30 PDT