linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v7 5/8] KVM: guest_memfd: Make guest mem use guest mem inodes instead of anonymous inodes

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Z_fUXKcvbbUTQO1n@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 07:23:24 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>,
	seanjc@...gle.com, david@...hat.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
	willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org,
	pbonzini@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
	serge@...lyn.com, pvorel@...e.cz, bfoster@...hat.com,
	tabba@...gle.com, vannapurve@...gle.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
	bharata@....com, nikunj@....com, michael.day@....com,
	yan.y.zhao@...el.com, Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com,
	thomas.lendacky@....com, michael.roth@....com, aik@....com,
	jgg@...dia.com, kalyazin@...zon.com, peterx@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 5/8] KVM: guest_memfd: Make guest mem use guest
 mem inodes instead of anonymous inodes

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 06:53:15AM -0700, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> > So why do other alloc_anon_inode callers not need
> > security_inode_init_security_anon?
> 
> Thanks for this tip!
> 
> When I did this refactoring, I was just refactoring
> anon_inode_create_getfile(), to set up the guest_memfd inode and file in
> separate stages, and anon_inode_create_getfile() was already using
> security_inode_init_security_anon().
> 
> In the next revision I can remove this call.
> 
> Is it too late to remove the call to security_inode_init_security_anon()
> though? IIUC it is used by LSMs, which means security modules may
> already be assuming this call?

I'd really like to here from the security folks if we need it or not,
both in this case and for other alloc_anon_inode callers.