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: <20201112015359.1103333-1-lokeshgidra@google.com>
 <20201112015359.1103333-3-lokeshgidra@google.com> <CAHC9VhScpFVtxzU_nUDUc4zGT7+EZKFRpYAm+Ps5vd2AjKkaMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7dfe33a4d0f9c27f3e25f72a988201a@dancol.org>
In-Reply-To: <f7dfe33a4d0f9c27f3e25f72a988201a@dancol.org>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQhvqtfF0m3BgObjQaT7WSLfqT8v0SJsKiTxfF0GxQU7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface
To:     dancol <dancol@dancol.org>
Cc:     Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@google.com>,
        Aaron Goidel <acgoide@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>,
        Adrian Reber <areber@redhat.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        kaleshsingh@google.com, calin@google.com, surenb@google.com,
        jeffv@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, hch@infradead.org,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:42 PM dancol <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
> > boolean?  It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
> > assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever
> > going to be a case where this is not true?
>
> The converse isn't true though: it makes sense to ask for a secure inode
> with a NULL context inode.

Having looked at patch 3/4 and 4/4 I just realized that and was coming
back to update my comments :)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com