From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264375AbTDXUkC (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:40:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264397AbTDXUkC (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:40:02 -0400 Received: from cerebus.wirex.com ([65.102.14.138]:33269 "EHLO figure1.int.wirex.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264375AbTDXUj5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:39:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:47:02 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Stephen Smalley , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , "Ted Ts'o" , Stephen Tweedie , lsm , Andreas Gruenbacher , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules against 2.5.68 Message-ID: <20030424134702.H15094@figure1.int.wirex.com> Mail-Followup-To: Stephen Smalley , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Ted Ts'o , Stephen Tweedie , lsm , Andreas Gruenbacher , lkml References: <1051125476.14761.146.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030423202614.A5890@infradead.org> <1051127534.14761.166.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030423212004.A7383@infradead.org> <1051188945.14761.284.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030424140358.A30888@infradead.org> <1051192166.14761.334.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030424113615.F15094@figure1.int.wirex.com> <1051210971.20300.89.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030424134040.T26054@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030424134040.T26054@schatzie.adilger.int>; from adilger@clusterfs.com on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:40:40PM -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andreas Dilger (adilger@clusterfs.com) wrote: > > Couldn't that be used to do the trusted-namespace- means-CAP_SYS_ADMIN > checks, but it can be replaced by other LSM security modules if desired? I think that's what Stephen is saying. The issue is, the "trusted." handler uses CAP_SYS_ADMIN internally, after any other LSM check has already occurred. And the capable() check is too simple to know things like which inode's xattr is in question at the moment or which namespace. So Stephen was suggesting moving it out of the handler and putting it in core code. cheers, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net