[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200910200010.GF1236603@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:00:10 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Philippe Trébuchet <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@...p-os.org>,
Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 0/3] Add introspect_access(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 07:40:33PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 08:38:21PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > There is also the use case of noexec mounts and file permissions. From
> > user space point of view, it doesn't matter which kernel component is in
> > charge of defining the policy. The syscall should then not be tied with
> > a verification/integrity/signature/appraisal vocabulary, but simply an
> > access control one.
>
> permission()?
int lsm(int fd, const char *how, char *error, int size);
Seriously, this is "ask LSM to apply special policy to file"; let's
_not_ mess with flags, etc. for that; give it decent bandwidth
and since it's completely opaque for the rest of the kernel,
just a pass a string to be parsed by LSM as it sees fit.
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.
