TAF vs. fine-grained masking

Hi,

I have been doing a lot of thinking and reviewing of Dazuko. The two hot 
topics lately include TAF (trusted application framework) and fine-grained 
masking. Here are my thoughts about the two similar, yet different features:


The trusted application framework has the advantage that you can have a 
helper application be safely ignored by Dazuko. I say safely because your 
helper application uses tokens to request access and can give up the trusted 
priviledges as soon as it is finished (thus closing the "hole" behind it). 
Trusted applications are ignored from Dazuko as a whole (not just one group).

Trusted applications are ideal if a helper application needs to work with 
files as events occur (for example a file scanner). It works in a safe 
manner because it verifies with each access that the trusted process is the 
same process that requested trusted access originally. If a new process is 
seen (even if it has the same PID/UID), the process is stripped of trusted 
priveledges.


Fine-grained masking allows your group to specify very specific events that 
should be watched and ignored. If a registered group is only interested in 
the EXEC activity of user 1000 in directory /usr, then this can be specified 
in the mask. Currently this is possible by having your application ignore 
the other events. But this causes wasted context switches and hurts system 
performance. Fine-grained masking is group-specific and the mask attributes 
are limited to the fields of the dazuko_access structure.

Fine-grained masking is ideal if you are only interested in very specific 
types of events. However, fine-grained masking is *not* intended to be used 
for helper applications. Although it could be (ab)used for this purpose, it 
may not be as safe because Dazuko is not doing checks to see if the 
"process" has changed. It is only matching the mask, which is PID/UID.


I really like the idea of fine-grained masking, because it generalizes and 
extends the existing AddExcludePath/AddIncludePath functions. It is also 
something that can improve performance for applications that are only 
interested in specific users and/or pid's. But I would like to extend it 
even further to allow for removal of specific masks as well. This will 
eliminate the "all or nothing" approach currently implemented in masks.

I think that trusted applications are important for registered processes 
that would like to do "external work" on the files being accessed. An 
example of this is an anti-virus application using an all-purpose scan daemon.


Fine-grained masking will take more time than I originally thought, mainly 
because I want to do a "complete" implementation with individual mask 
removal included. This means that I will not include it in the 2.1.x series, 
but will plan it for the 2.2.x series. The main motivation for this decision 
is that 2.1.0-pre3 already includes many improvements over 2.0.6 and I want 
to get a stable release of it finished soon. Fine-grained masking will 
involve many fundamental changes in Dazuko (the underlying implementation as 
well as API extension) and we are too close to a 2.1.0 release to start 
digging up the code.

John Ogness

-- 
Dazuko Maintainer