linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/23] securityfs: Extend securityfs with namespacing support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d31e8276-9303-fff8-427f-afc859131202@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:28:44 -0500
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     serge@...lyn.com, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
        containers@...ts.linux.dev, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com,
        roberto.sassu@...wei.com, mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com,
        lsturman@...hat.com, puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        jamjoom@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/23] securityfs: Extend securityfs with namespacing
 support


On 1/27/22 11:53, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 17:46 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> Enable multiple instances of securityfs by keying each instance with a
>> pointer to the user namespace it belongs to.
>>
>> Since we do not need the pinning of the filesystem for the virtualization
>> case, limit the usage of simple_pin_fs() and simpe_release_fs() to the
>> case when the init_user_ns is active. This simplifies the cleanup for the
>> virtualization case where usage of securityfs_remove() to free dentries
>> is not needed anymore.
> Could you add a sentence here explaining why securityfs_remove() isn't
> needed in the virtualization case?

At this point the reason is that simple_pin_fs() is not used for the 
virtualization case.

Maybe it should say: ... to free dentries is *therefore* not needed anymore.

    Stefan