Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-10481-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:34:11 -0600
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Alfred Piccioni <alpic@google.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: new security_file_ioctl_compat() hook
Message-ID: <20231223153411.GB901@quark.localdomain>
References: <20230906102557.3432236-1-alpic@google.com>
 <20231219090909.2827497-1-alpic@google.com>
 <CAHC9VhTpc7SD0t-5AJ49+b-FMTx1svDBQcR7j6c1rmREUNW7gg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTpc7SD0t-5AJ49+b-FMTx1svDBQcR7j6c1rmREUNW7gg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 08:23:26PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> 
> Is it considered valid for a native 64-bit task to use 32-bit
> FS_IO32_XXX flags?

No, that's not valid.

> If not, do we want to remove the FS_IO32_XXX flag
> checks in selinux_file_ioctl()?

I don't see any such flag checks in selinux_file_ioctl().

Is there something else you have in mind?

- Eric