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;
Message-ID: <079745c94c232591453dcb01c9d9406b721bb6bf.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security
 hook for fs notifications
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Aaron Goidel <acgoide@tycho.nsa.gov>, paul@paul-moore.com
Cc:     selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, jack@suse.cz,
        amir73il@gmail.com, jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:22:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6ce2ce60b2435940bc8dfa07fa2553c4524d2db5.camel@perches.com>
References: <20190710133403.855-1-acgoide@tycho.nsa.gov>
         <4fd98c88-61a6-a155-5028-db22a778d3c1@schaufler-ca.com>
         <cb754dda-fbce-8169-4cd7-eef66e8d809e@infradead.org>
         <6ce2ce60b2435940bc8dfa07fa2553c4524d2db5.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-0ubuntu0.18.10.1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 10:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 09:49 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 7/10/19 9:38 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > On 7/10/2019 6:34 AM, Aaron Goidel wrote:
> > > > @@ -3261,6 +3262,26 @@ static int selinux_inode_removexattr(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name)
> > > >  	return -EACCES;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static int selinux_inode_notify(struct inode *inode, u64 mask)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	u32 perm = FILE__WATCH; // basic permission, can a watch be set?
> > > 
> > > We don't use // comments in the Linux kernel.
> > > 
> > 
> > I thought that we had recently moved into the 21st century on that issue,
> > but I don't see it mentioned in coding-style.rst.  Maybe we need a Doc update.
> > 
> > checkpatch allows C99 comments by default.
> > Joe, do you recall about this?
> 
> My recollection is it was something I thought was
> just simple and useful so I added it to checkpatch
> without going through the negative of the nominal
> approvals required by modifying CodingStyle.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/8/625