[PATCH] [RFC] xfs: initialise attr fork on inode create
hch at infradead.org
Mon Dec 7 17:25:45 UTC 2020
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 09:22:13AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Only security modules should ever look at what's in the security blob.
> In fact, you can't assume that the presence of a security blob
> (i.e. ...->s_security != NULL) implies "need_xattr", or any other
> state for the superblock.
Maybe "strongly suggests that an xattr will be added" is the better
> >> or whether there is some other way of knowing ahead
> >> of time that a security xattr is going to be created. I couldn't
> >> find one, but that doesn't mean such an interface doesn't exist in
> >> all the twisty passages of the LSM layers...
> > I've added the relevant list, maybe someone there has an opinion.
> How is what you're looking for different from security_ismaclabel() ?
Not at all. What this needs is a guestimate (which doesn't have
to be 100% reliable) that a new inode created by ->create, ->mknod,
or ->mkdir will have an xattr set on it during the creation syscall.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive