Re: nfs optimization and veriexec

> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> 
> > yes, but i really don't want to have veriexec
specific code in
> > each filesystems.  can't veriexec be modified to
deal with it?
> 
> For a while I've been wanting to modify the way
Veriexec does some
> things, namely the check of strict level in
dev/verified_exec.c, by
> adding a kauth(9) scope for it to perform operations
on.
> 
> Perhaps it's a good time to introduce said scope, and
add an action
> to indicate whether the NFS optimization can take
place. Would that
> work for you?

i'm not sure what you mean by "an action to indicate
whether the
NFS optimization can take place."
do you mean to make nfs call kauth_authorize_foo with the
action?

> The only thing I'm wondering about is what the kernel
would do in
> case Veriexec is not even compiled in... maybe just put
in weak-aliased
> stubs (similar to secmodel_start() in
kern/init_main.c).
> 
> (perhaps having a file that is always compiled and
contains weak-aliased
> always-allow stubs for when conditionally compiled in
scopes are not
> compiled in is appropriate? 
> 
> -e.

i don't understand how it matters.
do you mean a very veriexec specific scope which doesn't
make sense at all
unless veriexec is compiled in?

YAMAMOTO Takashi

YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:

>> Perhaps it's a good time to introduce said scope,
and add an action
>> to indicate whether the NFS optimization can take
place. Would that
>> work for you?
> 
> i'm not sure what you mean by "an action to
indicate whether the
> NFS optimization can take place."
> do you mean to make nfs call kauth_authorize_foo with
the action?

Yes, but that call will only be made if Veriexec is compiled
in.

>> The only thing I'm wondering about is what the
kernel would do in
>> case Veriexec is not even compiled in... maybe just
put in weak-aliased
>> stubs (similar to secmodel_start() in
kern/init_main.c).
>>
>> (perhaps having a file that is always compiled and
contains weak-aliased
>> always-allow stubs for when conditionally compiled
in scopes are not
>> compiled in is appropriate? 
> 
> i don't understand how it matters.
> do you mean a very veriexec specific scope which
doesn't make sense at all
> unless veriexec is compiled in?

Yes.

-e.