Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804260502030.12534@namei.org>
References: <20180423133015.5455-1-dh.herrmann@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804260443110.11568@namei.org>
 <CAHC9VhR-V1R2BpCt1aA56q4yT_PWv1kzoWtksbNkm08stcOGPw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804260502030.12534@namei.org>
From:   David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 May 2018 16:29:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CANq1E4QgRUvG4WJ_XZoWpvegE-TRF5CddiSptNUFQkURJr5Znw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Introduce LSM-hook for socketpair(2)
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hey

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:02 PM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:44 PM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, David Herrmann wrote:
>> >> This patch series tries to close this gap and makes both behave the
>> >> same. A new LSM-hook is added which allows LSMs to cache the correct
>> >> peer information on newly created socket-pairs.
>> >
>> > Looks okay to me.
>> >
>> > Once it's respun with the Smack backend and maybe the hook name change,
>> > I'll merge this unless DaveM wants it to go in via his networking tree.
>>
>> Note my objection to the hook placement in patch 2/3; I think we
>> should move the hook out of the AF_UNIX layer and up into the socket
>> layer.
>
> I vote for this as it maintains the intended abstraction of the socket
> API.

Sounds good, I changed it. I will send v2 shortly.

Thanks
David