Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 03:31:38 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <>
To: Mickaël Salaün <>
cc: Casey Schaufler <>,,
        Al Viro <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Jann Horn <>, Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Michael Kerrisk <>,
        Mickaël Salaün <>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <>, Shuah Khan <>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <>,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/10] fs,landlock: Support filesystem

On Thu, 14 May 2020, Mickaël Salaün wrote:

> > This needs to be converted to the LSM API via superblock blob stacking.
> > 
> > See Casey's old patch: 
> >
> s_landlock_inode_refs is quite similar to s_fsnotify_inode_refs, but I
> can do it once the superblock security blob patch is upstream. Is it a
> blocker for now? What is the current status of lbs_superblock?

Yes it is a blocker. Landlock should not be adding its own functions in 
core code, it should be using the LSM API (and extending that as needed).

> Anyway, we also need to have a call to landlock_release_inodes() in
> generic_shutdown_super(), which does not fit the LSM framework, and I
> think it is not an issue. Landlock handling of inodes is quite similar
> to fsnotify.

fsnotify is not an LSM.

James Morris

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.