From: Stephen Smalley <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Daniel Colascione <email@example.com> Cc: Casey Schaufler <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sandeep Patil <email@example.com>, Paul Moore <firstname.lastname@example.org>, LSM List <email@example.com>, Linux FS Devel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Al Viro <email@example.com>, SElinux list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Nick Kralevich <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stephen Smalley <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] security,anon_inodes,kvm: enable security support for anon inodes Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:31:34 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAEjxPJ7DykRX7Q1NLhtRh123rjAvW4t6symJ5ochth+iCyg3kg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAKOZuevcz+fvfhRXPx2iZGtkk6+FjVj3ZSaGGT8DfwsOJR0k3A@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 5:51 PM Daniel Colascione <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:25 AM Stephen Smalley > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:11 PM Daniel Colascione <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:50 AM Daniel Colascione <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM Casey Schaufler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2/17/2020 4:14 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Stephen Smalley <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > >> We are primarily posting this RFC patch now so that the two different > > > > > >> approaches can be concretely compared. We anticipate a hybrid of the > > > > > >> two approaches being the likely outcome in the end. In particular > > > > > >> if support for allocating a separate inode for each of these files > > > > > >> is acceptable, then we would favor storing the security information > > > > > >> in the inode security blob and using it instead of the file security > > > > > >> blob. > > > > > > Bringing this back up in hopes of attracting some attention from the > > > > > > fs-devel crowd and Al. As Stephen already mentioned, from a SELinux > > > > > > perspective we would prefer to attach the security blob to the inode > > > > > > as opposed to the file struct; does anyone have any objections to > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay - been sick the past few days. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the inode is a better place than the file for information > > > > > about the inode. This is especially true for Smack, which uses > > > > > multiple extended attributes in some cases. I don't believe that any > > > > > except the access label will be relevant to anonymous inodes, but > > > > > I can imagine security modules with policies that would. > > > > > > > > > > I am always an advocate of full xattr support. It goes a long > > > > > way in reducing the number and complexity of special case interfaces. > > > > > > > > It sounds like we have broad consensus on using the inode to hold > > > > security information, implying that anon_inodes should create new > > > > inodes. Do any of the VFS people want to object? > > > > > > Ping? > > > > I'd recommend refreshing your patch series to incorporate feedback on > > the previous version and re-post, > > including viro and linux-fsdevel on the cc, and see if they have any > > comments on it. > > I don't think there's anything in the patch series that needs to > change right now. AFAICT, we're still just waiting on comment from the > VFS people, who should be on this thread. Did I miss something? There was some discussion on the SELinux bits in patch 2/3. I would take the silence on the vfs bits as implicit acceptance until you hear otherwise and just submit a v2 that addresses the SELinux bits.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-11 13:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-13 19:41 Stephen Smalley 2020-02-13 19:47 ` Stephen Smalley 2020-02-18 0:14 ` Paul Moore 2020-02-20 18:11 ` Casey Schaufler 2020-02-20 18:50 ` Daniel Colascione 2020-03-10 18:09 ` Daniel Colascione 2020-03-10 18:26 ` Stephen Smalley 2020-03-10 21:50 ` Daniel Colascione 2020-03-11 13:31 ` Stephen Smalley [this message]
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=CAEjxPJ7DykRX7Q1NLhtRh123rjAvW4t6symJ5ochth+iCyg3kg@mail.gmail.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH] security,anon_inodes,kvm: enable security support for anon inodes' \ /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
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).