[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005150329580.26489@namei.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 03:31:38 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/10] fs,landlock: Support filesystem
access-control
On Thu, 14 May 2020, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > This needs to be converted to the LSM API via superblock blob stacking.
> >
> > See Casey's old patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20190829232935.7099-2-casey@schaufler-ca.com/
>
> s_landlock_inode_refs is quite similar to s_fsnotify_inode_refs, but I
> can do it once the superblock security blob patch is upstream. Is it a
> blocker for now? What is the current status of lbs_superblock?
Yes it is a blocker. Landlock should not be adding its own functions in
core code, it should be using the LSM API (and extending that as needed).
> Anyway, we also need to have a call to landlock_release_inodes() in
> generic_shutdown_super(), which does not fit the LSM framework, and I
> think it is not an issue. Landlock handling of inodes is quite similar
> to fsnotify.
fsnotify is not an LSM.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists