ecryptfs-devel team mailing list archive
-
ecryptfs-devel team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00173
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] File descriptor labeling
-
To:
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxx>
-
From:
Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Wed, 04 May 2011 10:34:51 -0700
-
Cc:
kirkland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, safford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, apparmor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, eparis@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxx, dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ecryptfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
In-reply-to:
<201105041047.57161.roberto.sassu@polito.it>
-
User-agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 5/4/2011 1:47 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 01:58:00 AM John Johansen wrote:
>> ....
>> I have to agree with Casey, Generally looping back through the vfs should
>> be using the user's credentials. This doesn't even stop you opening the
>> lower file with a different set of permissions (eg. rw while the upper
>> is opened with r).
> Hi Casey and John
>
> my patch set does not modify this behavior: VFS calls on upper inodes
> made by user processes and VFS calls (read/write) made by eCryptfs
> on lower inodes still use the user's credentials.
>
> In addition, SELinux provide a model for file descriptors. They may be
> opened by another subject (which provided its own credentials) and
> other processes need the 'use' permission for those file descriptors
> other than permissions for related inodes.
>
> This means that, even if eCryptfs opens lower inodes with its own
> credentials, user processes still need permissions to read/write both
> upper and lower inodes.
>
> One benefit of allowing eCryptfs to provide its own credentials is that
> user processes must have granted only strictly required permissions.
>
> Roberto Sassu
My point is that you should be able to achieve all of what you
say you want to do without introducing the LSM changes you are
proposing.
References