From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
raven@themaw.net, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Rational model for UID based controls
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 17:56:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18357.1559753807@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e4c19d1b-9827-5949-ecb8-6c3cb4648f58@schaufler-ca.com>
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> YES!
I'm trying to decide if that's fervour or irritation at this point ;-)
> And it would be really great if you put some thought into what
> a rational model would be for UID based controls, too.
I have put some thought into it, but I don't see a single rational model. It
depends very much on the situation.
In any case, that's what I was referring to when I said I might need to call
inode_permission(). But UIDs don't exist for all filesystems, for example,
and there are no UIDs on superblocks, mount objects or hardware events.
Now, I could see that you ignore UIDs on things like keys and
hardware-triggered events, but how does this interact with things like mount
watches that see directories that have UIDs?
Are you advocating making it such that process B can only see events triggered
by process A if they have the same UID, for example?
David
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
raven@themaw.net, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Rational model for UID based controls
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 16:56:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18357.1559753807@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e4c19d1b-9827-5949-ecb8-6c3cb4648f58@schaufler-ca.com>
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> YES!
I'm trying to decide if that's fervour or irritation at this point ;-)
> And it would be really great if you put some thought into what
> a rational model would be for UID based controls, too.
I have put some thought into it, but I don't see a single rational model. It
depends very much on the situation.
In any case, that's what I was referring to when I said I might need to call
inode_permission(). But UIDs don't exist for all filesystems, for example,
and there are no UIDs on superblocks, mount objects or hardware events.
Now, I could see that you ignore UIDs on things like keys and
hardware-triggered events, but how does this interact with things like mount
watches that see directories that have UIDs?
Are you advocating making it such that process B can only see events triggered
by process A if they have the same UID, for example?
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-05 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-04 16:34 [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications [ver #2] David Howells
2019-06-04 16:34 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 1/8] security: Override creds in __fput() with last fputter's creds " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 18:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 18:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 2/8] General notification queue with user mmap()'able ring buffer " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 3/8] keys: Add a notification facility " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 4/8] vfs: Add a mount-notification " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 5/8] vfs: Add superblock notifications " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` [PATCH 6/8] fsinfo: Export superblock notification counter " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` [PATCH 7/8] block: Add block layer notifications " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` [PATCH 8/8] Add sample notification program " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 17:43 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications " Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 17:43 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 20:31 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-04 20:31 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-04 21:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 21:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 22:03 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-04 22:03 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 8:41 ` David Howells
2019-06-05 8:41 ` David Howells
2019-06-05 14:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 14:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 16:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 16:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 17:01 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 17:01 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 17:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 17:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 18:12 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 18:12 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 18:25 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 18:25 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 19:28 ` Greg KH
2019-06-05 19:28 ` Greg KH
2019-06-05 21:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 21:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 16:56 ` David Howells [this message]
2019-06-05 16:56 ` Rational model for UID based controls David Howells
2019-06-05 17:40 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 17:40 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 21:06 ` David Howells
2019-06-05 21:06 ` David Howells
2019-06-05 17:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications [ver #2] David Howells
2019-06-05 17:21 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 20:39 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 20:39 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 20:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 20:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
[not found] ` <CAB9W1A0AgMYOwGx9c-TmAt=1O6Bjsr2P3Nhd=2+QV39dgw0CrA@mail.gmail.com>
2019-06-05 4:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 4:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 13:47 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 13:47 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-04 21:11 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-04 21:11 ` Casey Schaufler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=18357.1559753807@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.