Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSMhook

[Tetsuo Handa]

Hello.

I think bind mounts were discussed when shared subtree
( http://lwn.net/Articles/159092/ ) was introduced.

For systems that allow users mount their CD/DVDs freely,
bind mounts are used and labeling files is a convenient way
to deny accessing somebody else's files.

But systems that don't allow users mount their CD/DVDs freely,
bind mounts needn't to be used and using pathnames is a convenient way
to deny accessing somebody else's files.

Pathname based access control/auditing system
works if the system doesn't use bind mounts.

However, there are distributions (e.g. Debian Etch)
that always use bind mounts. In such distributions,
pathname based access control/auditing system doesn't work.

This is not the fault of distributions nor
pathname based access control/auditing system.
It is possible to solve by passing vfsmount to VFS and LSM functions.

SELinux users are having a lot of trouble because pathnames in audit logs
are not always complete.
AppArmor users are having a lot of trouble because pathnames which
a process requested are ambiguous when bind mounts are used.

Being able to report pathnames that a process requested is not surprising
when considering user friendliness.
I beleive passing vfsmount makes both users happy.

Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/