Re: [PATCH 07/10] NFSv4: Introduce new label structure

[Chuck Lever]

On 07/ 7/10 12:22 PM, David P. Quigley wrote:
> Hello Chuck,
>     Thank you for the comments. I'll go through and address them inline
> (Sorry for the top post).
>
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 12:01 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > My comments below apply to the other NFS client patches as well.  This
> > seemed like the right one to use for code examples.
> >
> > On 07/ 7/10 10:31 AM, David P. Quigley wrote:

  [ ... snipped ... ]

> > It seems to me you want something more generic, just like nfs_fh or
> > nfs_fattr, to represent these.  Over time, I'm guessing label support
> > won't be tied to a specific NFS version.  And, you are passing these
> > around in the generic NFS functions (for post-op updates and inode
> > revalidation, and what not).
> >
> > Can I recommend "struct nfs_seclabel" instead?  Then have
> > nfs_seclabel_alloc() and nfs_seclabel_free().
>
> I can definitely rename them to be more generic. I don't see anything
> else besides NFSv4 using them but its fine with me to rename them. The
> reason we call them nfs4_label is because we modeled it after the NFSv4
> acl support code. I spoke with Christoph a long time ago and he
> suggested that it should be handled the same way that the NFSv4 ACLs are
> handled as opposed to the iattr thing we were trying.
>
> > Does it make sense to deduplicate these in the client's memory?  It
> > seems to me that you could have hundreds or thousands that all contain
> > the same label information.
>
> I don't think it is worth the effort. We are only using these structures
> until the security label is crammed into the inode. Once that happens
> they get freed. You shouldn't have them sitting around for very long.

OK, the lifetime of these things wasn't clear.

> They will be pulled again when the inode attributes expire and need to
> be revalidated. For things like SELinux you could argue that the LSM
> might benefit from this (and it might already do it but I'm not sure)
> but I think that is something to be handled by the LSM itself or the
> credentials code (since it already supports COW credentials it should be
> possible).

I think the lifetime of the label structure then is about the same as 
the lifetime of an nfs_attr, and not at all the same as an ACL.  I'm 
just guessing here.

Would it then make sense to add a field that refers to the security 
label to struct nfs_fattr instead?  That might simplify or eliminate all 
of the internal API changes.
--
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/