Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

[Christoph Hellwig]

>  int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask)
>  {
> -	return inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> +	int retval;
> +
> +	retval = inode_permission(nd->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> +	if (retval)
> +		return retval;
> +	return integrity_inode_permission(NULL, &nd->path,
> +					  mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> +						  MAY_EXEC));
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -306,7 +314,14 @@ int vfs_permission(struct nameidata *nd, int mask)
>   */
>  int file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
>  {
> -	return inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> +	int retval;
> +
> +	retval = inode_permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> +	if (retval)
> +		return retval;
> +	return integrity_inode_permission(file, NULL,
> +					  mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> +						  MAY_EXEC));

Please don't add anything here as these two wrappers will go away.
Please only make decisions based on what you get in inode_permission().

>  }
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 32477e8..349d548 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -683,6 +683,9 @@ struct inode {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
>  	void			*i_security;
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
> +	void			*i_integrity;
> +#endif

Sorry, but as said before bloating the inode for this is not an option.
Please use something like the MRU approach I suggested in the last
review round.

--
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/