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

[Cliffe]

>> On the other hand, if you actually want to protect the _data_, then 
tagging the _name_ is flawed; tag the *DATA* instead.

Would it make sense to label the data (resource) with a list of paths 
(names) that can be used to access it?

Therefore the data would be protected against being accessed via 
alternative arbitrary names. This may be a simple label to maintain and 
(possibly to) enforce, allowing path based confinement to protect a 
resource. This may allow for the benefits of pathname based confinement 
while avoiding some of its problems.

Obviously this would not protect against a pathname pointing to 
arbitrary data…


Just a thought.

Z. Cliffe Schreuders.


-
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/