[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZxEnV353YshfkmXe@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 08:03:51 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Extend test fs_kfuncs to
cover security.bpf xattr names
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 04:51:37PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > I think that getting user.* xattrs from bpf hooks can still be useful for
> > introspection and other tasks so I'm not convinced we should revert that
> > functionality but maybe it is too easy to misuse? I'm not really decided.
>
> Reading user.* xattr is fine. If an LSM decides to built a security
> model around it then imho that's their business and since that happens
> in out-of-tree LSM programs: shrug.
By that argument user.kfuncs is even more useless as just being able
to read all xattrs should be just as fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists