Re: [RFC][Patch 2/6] integrity: fs hook placement

[Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>]

* Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> +	integrity_d_instantiate(entry, inode);
>  	security_d_instantiate(entry, inode);

> +		integrity_d_instantiate(entry, inode);
>  		security_d_instantiate(entry, inode);

>  			spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> +			integrity_d_instantiate(new, inode);
>  			security_d_instantiate(new, inode);
>  			d_rehash(dentry);

>  			d_move(new, dentry);
> +			integrity_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  			security_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  			d_rehash(dentry);

>  	if (actual == dentry) {
> +		integrity_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		security_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);


>  		file->f_op->release(inode, file);
>  	security_file_free(file);
> +	integrity_file_free(file);


>  		security_file_free(file);
> +		integrity_file_free(file);


> 		if (security_inode_alloc(inode)) {
...
> +		if (integrity_inode_alloc(inode)) {
> +			if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
> +				inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);

>  	security_inode_free(inode);
> +	integrity_inode_free(inode);

>  	error = security_inode_setxattr(dentry, name, value, size, flags);
>  	if (error)
>  		goto out;
> +
> +	error = integrity_inode_setxattr(dentry, name, value, size, flags);

>  			fsnotify_xattr(dentry);
> +			integrity_inode_post_setxattr(dentry, name);
>  			security_inode_post_setxattr(dentry, name, value,

I know there's some slightly different goals, but this just doesn't make
sense.  Need to get back to defining and expressing just the differences.