xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Extended attributes: process vs. kernel context (e.g. HSM)

To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Extended attributes: process vs. kernel context (e.g. HSM)
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:58:19 -0500
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen C.Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>, ext2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200211120012.22860.agruen@xxxxxxx>
References: <200211100135.26236.agruen@xxxxxxx> <200211111334.32074.agruen@xxxxxxx> <20021111210524.GB6032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200211120012.22860.agruen@xxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:12:22AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > The other thing to consider here is that I really don't want to
> > start us down the path where individual user attributes are owned
> > by some user or group other than the owner or group owner of the
> > base file.  When you start talking about "credentials being passed
> > around", as opposed to simply a single bit which says, "this is
> > official kernel business", you're scaring me.
> 
> I wasn't thinking of different permissions for different attributes,
> but of a way do decouple the running process from the credentials
> seen in the file system. The only cases at the moment are kernel
> context vs. process context, but other cases might come up in the
> future (NFS?).

As long as stick to a very simple file ownership access control model
for xattr's, then NFS can simply do the uid check itself.  We don't
need to pass full set of credentials; a simple integer comparison in
the NFS code before it calls the set_xattr() call will do.

(And maybe a special case test for uid == 0, although why anyone who
cares about security wwould be insane enough to run NFS without NFS
root squash enabled is completely beyond me....)

                                                        - Ted


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>