netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] lsm: Add hook security_unix

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQvsdmzQcQwpFeHnspySPe3GbwXMMo5tBB2rQzUneO4FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 12:09:32 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>
Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>, 
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>, Tingmao Wang <m@...wtm.org>, 
	Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>, 
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, 
	Justin Suess <utilityemal77@...il.com>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	Samasth Norway Ananda <samasth.norway.ananda@...cle.com>, Matthieu Buffet <matthieu@...fet.re>, 
	Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>, konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com, 
	Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@...il.com>, Alyssa Ross <hi@...ssa.is>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	Tahera Fahimi <fahimitahera@...il.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] lsm: Add hook security_unix_find

On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 5:25 AM Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> You have previously said that you would like hooks to be generic and
> ideally reflect the arguments of the same function that they are
> called from [3].

To clarify, I didn't say that it is generally ideal for the LSM hook
to reflect the arguments of the calling function; while that might be
a good starting point, we have plenty of examples where that is not
desirable.  In this particular case I said it seems like it would be a
good idea to pass the "type" and "flags" parameters from the caller to
the LSM hook.

> Q: Would it be acceptable to change the hook arguments, if we can then
> avoid passing additional data between hooks through that side-storage?

If you're passing the sock, I think we can skip passing the type,
however, I could envision someone wanting the path in addition to just
the sock, but let's wait to hear back from the AppArmor folks.

-- 
paul-moore.com