Re: [PATCH 1/2] ubifs: Remove dead xattr code

[Dongsheng Yang]

On 08/26/2015 10:15 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:48:38AM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> > On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > This is a partial revert of commit d7f0b70d30ffb9bbe6b8a3e1035cf0b79965ef53
> > > ("UBIFS: Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS").
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > 	What about a full reverting of this commit. In ubifs, we
> > *can* support any namespace of xattr including user, trusted, security
> > or other anyone prefixed by any words. But we have a check_namespace()
> > in xattr.c to limit what we want to support. That said, if we want to
> > "Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS", what we need to do is
> > just extending the check_namespace() to allow security namespace pass.
> > And yes, check_namespace() have been supporting security namespace.
>
> Is this good enough?  Yes, it'd mean that the xattrs end up on disk, but
> then who's responsible for invoking the selected LSMs inode_init_security() hooks?
> AFAICT, we'd still need to invoke security_inode_init_security for newly
> created inodes (which, Richard's proposed commit still does).

OH, right. My bad!!!! I missed the security_inode_init_security().
Besides to allow security.* prefix in xattr, we still need to call
security_inode_init_security() in ubifs_create(). That's true.

So what we need to remove is only the ubifs_xattr_handlers.

Thanx Josh, you are right.

And Richard, sorry for my bad mind.

Reviewed-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanx
Yang
> Thanks,
>
>    Josh (who, admittedly, is neither a filesystem nor security module guy :)

--
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/