Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-118906-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:40:20 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>, 
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, 
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, 
	"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel crash in mknod
Message-ID: <20240326-halbkreis-wegstecken-8d5886e54d28@brauner>
References: <CAH2r5msAVzxCUHHG8VKrMPUKQHmBpE6K9_vjhgDa1uAvwx4ppw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240324054636.GT538574@ZenIV>
 <3441a4a1140944f5b418b70f557bca72@huawei.com>
 <20240325-beugen-kraftvoll-1390fd52d59c@brauner>
 <cb267d1c7988460094dbe19d1e7bcece@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cb267d1c7988460094dbe19d1e7bcece@huawei.com>

> we can change the parameter of security_path_post_mknod() from
> dentry to inode?

If all current callers only operate on the inode then it seems the best
to only pass the inode. If there's some reason someone later needs a
dentry the hook can always be changed.

For bigger changes it's also worthwhile if the object that's passed down
into the hook-based LSM layer is as specific as possible. If someone
does a change that affects lifetime rules of mounts then any hook that
takes a struct path argument that's unused means going through each LSM
that implements the hook only to find out it's not actually used.
Similar for dentry vs inode imho.