On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:05:29AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > For those who don't care about CONFIG_SECURITY.
> > >
> > > I'm quite sure we started that way, but the ifdefs were considered
> > > too much of an eyesore.
> >
> > argh, y'all stop top-posting at me.
>
> (Hmm, I'm replying at the point in the email I'm replying to. Is what
> I'm doing in this current email ok - i.e the one you replied to looked
> like pure top-posting - or do you actually want pure bottom posting?)
>
> > > If this is now acceptable, then the same thing might be considered
> > > for inode->i_security, kern_ipc_perm.security, etc. Getting rid of
> > > just the task->security seems overly half-hearted.
> > >
> > > -serge
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > include/linux/sched.h | 3 ++-
> > > > kernel/fork.c | 2 ++
> > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > > @@ -1086,8 +1086,9 @@ struct task_struct {
> > > > int (*notifier)(void *priv);
> > > > void *notifier_data;
> > > > sigset_t *notifier_mask;
> > > > -
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > > > void *security;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > struct audit_context *audit_context;
> > > > seccomp_t seccomp;
> > > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > > > @@ -1066,7 +1066,9 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned
> > > > long clone_flags,
> > > > do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&p->start_time);
> > > > p->real_start_time = p->start_time;
> > > > monotonic_to_bootbased(&p->real_start_time);
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > > > p->security = NULL;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > p->io_context = NULL;
> > > > p->io_wait = NULL;
> > > > p->audit_context = NULL;
> > > >
> >
> > I think it's OK. Removing 4 or 8 bytes from the task_struct is a decent
> > win,
> > and an ifdef at the definition site (unavoidable) and at a single
> > initialisation site where there are lots of other similar ifdefs is pretty
> > minimal hurt.
>
> Then how about making it depend on CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX? It's the
> only LSM actually using that field right now. (As more come along, we
> can use a hidden CONFIG_SECURITY_ATTRS or somesuch bool select'ed by
> LSMs which need it)
>
> Using CONFIG_SECURITY means that if you compile with SECURITY=n, you get
> the capability module but no task->security. If you compile with
> SECURITY=y but no modules, you get the dummy module and a
> task->security field!
If I understood intent correctly CONFIG_SECURITY_ATTRS will be an overkill
because of one more compilation breaking option and small amount of
people benefitting from it.
How much people have such setup? Example: for more than 4 years nobody from
CONFIG_SECURITY=n camp cared about their inodes and struct files being bigger
than needed. Even more time for task_struct and fork being slower.
> > In fact, looking through all those "= 0" and "= NULL" statements in
> > copy_process() makes one wonder whether we should be memsetting that guy to
> > zero then selectively copying things out of current, rather than the
> > present vice-versa.
> >
> > A possibly-neat way of doing this would be to move all the task_struct
> > fields which
> > are zeroed in copy_process() into a separate anonymous struct in
> > task_struct, then wipe only that in copy_process(). One would need to be
> > careful about the hand-arranged grouping which has been done in the
> > task_struct however.
Interesting... I am sure this was tried in good old times when task_struct
was not so bloated, maybe now it will be net win now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
