[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3tbhmL4oG1YTyT/@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:05:42 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, npiggin@...il.com,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell Currey <ruscur@...sell.cc>,
Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named
fwsecurityfs
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:14:26PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Nayna wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/17/22 16:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:03:43PM -0500, Nayna wrote:
> > > > > On 11/10/22 04:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > > I do not understand, sorry. What does namespaces have to do
> > > > > > with this?
> > > > > > sysfs can already handle namespaces just fine, why not use
> > > > > > that?
> > > > > Firmware objects are not namespaced. I mentioned it here as an
> > > > > example of the difference between firmware and kernel objects.
> > > > > It is also in response to the feedback from James Bottomley in
> > > > > RFC v2 [
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/41ca51e8db9907d9060cc38ad
> > > > > b59a66dcae4c59b.camel@...senPartnership.com/].
> > > > I do not understand, sorry. Do you want to use a namespace for
> > > > these or not? The code does not seem to be using namespaces.
> > > > You can use sysfs with, or without, a namespace so I don't
> > > > understand the issue here.
> > > >
> > > > With your code, there is no namespace.
> > >
> > > You are correct. There's no namespace for these.
> >
> > So again, I do not understand. Do you want to use filesystem
> > namespaces, or do you not?
>
> Since this seems to go back to my email quoted again, let me repeat:
> the question isn't if this patch is namespaced; I think you've agreed
> several times it isn't. The question is if the exposed properties
> would ever need to be namespaced. This is a subtle and complex
> question which isn't at all explored by the above interchange.
>
> > How again can you not use sysfs or securityfs due to namespaces?
> > What is missing?
>
> I already explained in the email that sysfs contains APIs like
> simple_pin_... which are completely inimical to namespacing.
Then how does the networking code handle the namespace stuff in sysfs?
That seems to work today, or am I missing something?
If the namespace support needs to be fixed up in sysfs (or in
securityfs), then great, let's do that, and not write a whole new
filesystem just because that's not done.
Also this patch series also doesn't handle namespaces, so again, I am
totally confused as to why this is even being discussed...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists