Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:15:07 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [TOMOYO #9 (2.6.27-rc7-mm1) 1/6] LSM adapter functions. |
| |
Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@nttdata.co.jp): > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:33:32 PDT, Casey Schaufler said: > >> I have always believed that MAC should come first, then DAC, because > >> MAC may care if you can see the mode bits. The current DAC before MAC > >> is an artifact of the desire for the LSM to behave cleanly as a > >> strictly additional mechanism. From an ideal security perspective > >> MAC should be first, but the pragmatic DAC first isn't going to cause > >> too much grief. If Tomoyo wants to do what I think is the right thing, > >> well, it's OK with me. > > I'm OK with the MAC going first as well > Current implementation is as follows. > - security_path_*: MAC before DAC > - security_inode_*: DAC before MAC > I can understand Casey and Valdis' MAC first approach from the ideal > security perspective. However, from the pragmatic perspective, we > prefer DAC before MAC approach as SELinux does. This approach doesn't > change error code returned to callers if requested access is denied > by DAC. > > Regards,
I suppose you could do something like define both _path and _inode, save away your result from the _path hook but always return 0, there, then if you'd saved off an error and you make it to the _inode hook, return the error there...
-serge
| |