Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87h7wujhmz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87sgga6ze4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87v9l4zyla.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87k11kzyjm.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <CAHk-=wj-Znzqp3xktZ+kERM5cKF-Yh_6XjyGYof6bqPq2T3F5A@mail.gmail.com> <878si0yijd.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <878si0yijd.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 13:19:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whZ-dXeYEk-meQT4pQmqJxATxDHSYbTSjL4dj56Ne9TFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] exec: Directly call security_bprm_set_creds from __do_execve_file
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 1:15 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> I agree something needs to be renamed, to remove confusion.

Yeah, the alternative is to rename the capability version. I don't
care much which way it goes, although I do think it's best to call out
explicitly that the security hook functions get only the "primary"
executable brpm info.

Which is why I'd prefer to just rename all those low-level security
cases. It makes for a slightly bigger patch, but I think it makes for
better readability, and makes it explicit that that hook is literally
just for the primary executable, not for the interpreter or whatever.

               Linus