[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQhvqtfF0m3BgObjQaT7WSLfqT8v0SJsKiTxfF0GxQU7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:36 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: dancol <dancol@...col.org>
Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
Aaron Goidel <acgoide@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
kaleshsingh@...gle.com, calin@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
jeffv@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hch@...radead.org,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:42 PM dancol <dancol@...col.org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
> > boolean? It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
> > assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever
> > going to be a case where this is not true?
>
> The converse isn't true though: it makes sense to ask for a secure inode
> with a NULL context inode.
Having looked at patch 3/4 and 4/4 I just realized that and was coming
back to update my comments :)
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists