[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <deda857ccc949f920ae3b7eca753d41b76acceda.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:58:56 +1100
From: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: 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>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named
fwsecurityfs
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 13:57 -0500, Nayna wrote:
>
> Given there are no other exploiters for fwsecurityfs and there should
> be
> no platform-specific fs, would modifying sysfs now to let userspace
> create files cleanly be the way forward? Or, if we should strongly
> consider securityfs, which would result in updating securityfs to
> allow
> userspace creation of files and then expose variables via a more
> platform-specific directory /sys/kernel/security/pks? We want to pick
> the best available option and would find some hints on direction
> helpful
> before we develop the next patch.
Ping - it would be helpful for us to know your thoughts on this.
Andrew
--
Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra
ajd@...ux.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited
Powered by blists - more mailing lists