[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [RFC][PATCH] (#6 U1) the latest incarnation



* Stephen Smalley (sds tycho nsa gov) wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 11:07 -0600, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure we should hook mknod or symlink.  We're not making any 
> > claims about the watchability of a device, or symlink with this code.  Do you 
> > agree?
> 
> We are only talking about post hooks to generate audit messages via
> audit_notify_watch() if the inode has previously been marked by
> audit_attach_watch().  Given your other hooks, it should already be
> possible to audit reads and writes to device nodes (since a watch should
> be possible to attach using your existing hooks in
> d_instantiate/d_splice_alias and notifications should be generated using
> your hook in permission), so why not allow auditing of creates as well?
> Given that udev makes /dev dynamic, it seems like watches might be
> important there as well, eh?

I agree, I see no reason to exclude these.  They're just inodes in the
filesystem.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]