Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM) | From | david safford <> | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:06:31 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:53 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting david safford (safford@watson.ibm.com): > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask) > > > > { > > > > - return inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask); > > > > + int retval; > > > > + > > > > + retval = inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask); > > > > + if (retval) > > > > + return retval; > > > > + return integrity_inode_permission(NULL, &nd->path, > > > > + mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | > > > > + MAY_EXEC)); > > > > } > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -306,7 +314,14 @@ int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask) > > > > */ > > > > int file_permission(struct file *file, int mask) > > > > { > > > > - return inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask); > > > > + int retval; > > > > + > > > > + retval = inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask); > > > > + if (retval) > > > > + return retval; > > > > + return integrity_inode_permission(file, NULL, > > > > + mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | > > > > + MAY_EXEC)); > > > > > > Please don't add anything here as these two wrappers will go away. > > > Please only make decisions based on what you get in inode_permission(). > > > > Hmm... As Mimi mentioned in the last review, we really need access > > to a path, which is not available in inode_permission. (Note the > > path is not used to make any integrity decision, but is recorded along > > with the measurement to help with the integrity analysis by a third > > party verifier.) Yes, there are other callers without path information, > > but getting a path here covers the bulk of the measurements. > > > > Is there some other alternative, other than this, or passing the > > dentry into inode_permission, which was also rejected? > > Whatever happened to the patch Mimi had floated to use the audit > subsystem to output a pathname? I thought that was pretty neat, > and it made particularly clear the the pathname was purely > informational. > > -serge
I'll double check with Mimi, but my recollection is that using the audit pathnames was nice, in that it returned a full path as a hint, not just a dentry filename, but that the audit system often did not have a path yet, so both the dentry name and the audit path were desirable.
dave
| |