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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/10] fs,landlock: Support filesystem access-control
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mickael.salaun@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
References: <20200511192156.1618284-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20200511192156.1618284-6-mic@digikod.net>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005141335280.30052@namei.org>
 <c159d845-6108-4b67-6527-405589fa5382@digikod.net>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005150329580.26489@namei.org>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Message-ID: <2561827e-020c-9a76-98ae-9514904c69f9@digikod.net>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 20:49:31 +0200
User-Agent: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005150329580.26489@namei.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 14/05/2020 19:31, James Morris wrote:
> 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: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20190829232935.7099-2-casey@schaufler-ca.com/
>>
>> 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).

OK, I'll use that in the next series.

> 
>> 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.

Yes, so I'll need to add a new LSM hook for this (release) call, right?