From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] xfs: initialize inode security on tmpfile creation Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:16:25 -0400 Message-ID: <534D9399.2090407@tycho.nsa.gov> References: <1397578706-5385-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1397578706-5385-3-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <20140415175033.GB26404@infradead.org> <534D90D0.9090805@tycho.nsa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Paul Moore , Eric Paris , xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig , Brian Foster Return-path: In-Reply-To: <534D90D0.9090805@tycho.nsa.gov> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 04/15/2014 04:04 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 04/15/2014 01:50 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:18:24PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >>> + error = xfs_init_security(inode, dir, &dentry->d_name); >>> + if (unlikely(error)) { >>> + iput(inode); >>> + return -error; >>> + } >>> + >>> d_tmpfile(dentry, inode); >>> >> >> I'd really love to hear from the LSM people who they plan to deal with >> O_TMPFILE inodes. But given that this seems to fix a real life bug >> let's go with it for now. > > Is there a reason that xfs_init_security() isn't called from the inode > allocation function (e.g. xfs_ialloc), as in ext4 (__ext4_new_inode > calls ext4_init_security and also calls ext4_init_acl)? That would have > ensured that tmpfile inodes would have been labeled without requiring a > separate change and more generally ensures complete coverage for all inodes. > > For SELinux, we need the tmpfile inodes to be labeled at creation time, > not just if linked into the namespace, since they may be shared via > local socket IPC or inherited across a label-changing exec and since we > revalidate access on transfer or use. > > Labeling based on the provided directory could be a bit random, although > it will work out with current policy if the provided directory > corresponds to existing tmpfile locations (e.g. /tmp, /var/tmp) and > therefore already has a label associated with temporary files. > Otherwise we might want some indication that it is a tmpfile passed into > security_inode_init_security() so that we can always select a stable > label irrespective of the directory. Hmm...wondering if we can use the qstr as a distinguisher; pass NULL for tmpfile and not for others as in ext4? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs