LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <>
To: Casey Schaufler <>
Cc: Chris Wright <>,
	Stephen Smalley <>,
	James Morris <>,
	Eric Paris <>,
	Paul Moore <>, Alexey Dobriyan <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Linus <>,
	LKML <>,
	LSM-ML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:55:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080305165513.GA26419@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Casey,

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 08:33:34AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> --- "Ahmed S. Darwish" <> wrote:
> > 
> > Do not let SMACK register smackfs if it was not chosen on
> > boot. Smackfs assumes that smack hooks are registered and
> > the initial task security setup (swapper->security) is done.
> If the problem with initializing smackfs is because the
> locks aren't initialized why not leave the lock initializations
> in smack_init, and have them done before the check to see if the
> smack LSM is going to get used? Really, we're only talking
> about the case where a kernel is configured for testing or
> development purposes, and the lock initialization can't
> be considered a major impact in any case.

Beside the locking initialization issue, there's the current->security
issue. smackfs init code code access current->security in 

As you know current->security may equal Null (Oops), or point to 
another LSM structure that preceeded us in registration. 

The locking argument can't be applied here since we may override
the other LSM tsk->security pointer this time.

Ofcourse all of the above points can be handleded by various
if(current->security) checks + rechecking the read/write methods
of each smackfs inode, but below only two lines will fix the 
problem from its roots ;):

+	if (!security_module_enable(&smack_ops))
+		return 0;

Is there a problem in the current approach that I'm not aware of ?

You have your veto in this issue at the end ;)

Thank you,


"Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness"

Ahmed S. Darwish

  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-05 16:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-04 13:10 [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not loaded Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-04 13:58 ` [PATCH -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-05 15:29   ` [PATCH -v7 " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-05 16:33     ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-05 16:55       ` Ahmed S. Darwish [this message]
2008-03-05 17:43         ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-05 18:46   ` [PATCH -v7b " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-04 17:21 ` [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not loaded Linus Torvalds
2008-03-04 18:24   ` Ahmed S. Darwish

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080305165513.GA26419@ubuntu \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH -v7 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter' \

* 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).