On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> It appears like the time_attrs parameter of security_path_truncate is
> unused by any security module, so I wonder if we can remove it?
I think we should aggressively remove interfaces that aren't used. The VFS
side has been complicated several times because of the security hooks, and
if they ended up not getting used and just complicates logic, we should
remove it.
> We cannot really get it right for truncate(2) calls anyway without
> holding i_mutex over the call (because ATTR_MTIME|ATTR_CTIME is
> effectively set iff size changes). So the meaning of this parameter
> today is misleading anyway.
Why do we pass it in to do_truncate() at all, btw? Especially as we seem
to be a bit confused about it. A regular 'truncate()' passes in a
time_attrs of '0', while a 'ftruncate()' passes ATTR_MTIME|ATTR_CTIME.
That doesn't sound right. And if it is (because I can well imagine some
strange and subtle POSIX rule wrt ftruncate() and mtime/ctime), I think we
should add a comment on it, since I've clearly forgotten the reason.
Btw, right now we pass in ATTR_OPEN too to the security_path_truncate()
call. Which again doesn't seem to be _used_ by any security thing, and
which also violates the naming of that argument. So there's some
additional strangeness going on there.
(That ATTR_OPEN case was introduced in commit be6d3e56a6 ("introduce new
LSM hooks where vfsmount is available"), for what its worth. The ATTR_OPEN
bit seems to have been copied from the do_truncate() call below it, I
think it's just a copy-paste error).
Linus
_______________________________________________
tomoyo-users-en mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sourceforge.jp/mailman/listinfo/tomoyo-users-en
