Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-1931-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <6ffcd054ff81d64b92b52baf097ed21f8ea4d870.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/25] security: Introduce file_post_open hook
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org,
        neilb@suse.de, kolga@netapp.com, Dai.Ngo@oracle.com, tom@talpey.com,
        jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com,
        eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org,
        stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, eparis@parisplace.org,
        casey@schaufler-ca.com, shuah@kernel.org, mic@digikod.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu
 <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 03:16:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQGiSq2LTm7TBvCwDB_NcMe_JjORLbuHVfC4UpJQi_N4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240115181809.885385-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
	 <20240115181809.885385-13-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
	 <305cd1291a73d788c497fe8f78b574d771b8ba41.camel@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAHC9VhQ7DgPJtNTRCYneu_XnpRmuwfPCW+FqVuS=k6U5-F6pJw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <05ad625b0f5a0e6c095abee5507801da255b36cd.camel@huaweicloud.com>
	 <CAHC9VhR2M_MWHs34kn-WH3Wr0sgT09WKveecy7onkFhUb1-gEg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <63afc94126521629bb7656b6e6783d6614ee898a.camel@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAHC9VhQGiSq2LTm7TBvCwDB_NcMe_JjORLbuHVfC4UpJQi_N4g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 16:21 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 3:07 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 10:33 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:59 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 16:16 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:06 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Roberto,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > > > > > > index d9d2636104db..f3d92bffd02f 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/security/security.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/security/security.c
> > > > > > > @@ -2972,6 +2972,23 @@ int security_file_open(struct file *file)
> > > > > > >       return fsnotify_perm(file, MAY_OPEN);  <===  Conflict
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Replace with "return fsnotify_open_perm(file);"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The patch set doesn't apply cleaning to 6.8-rcX without this
> > > > > > change.  Unless
> > > > > > there are other issues, I can make the change.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I take it this means you want to pull this via the IMA/EVM tree?
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure about that, but I have enough changes to do to make a v10.
> > 
> > @Roberto:  please add my "Reviewed-by" to the remaining patches.
> > 
> > > Sorry, I should have been more clear, the point I was trying to
> > > resolve was who was going to take this patchset (eventually).  There
> > > are other patches destined for the LSM tree that touch the LSM hooks
> > > in a way which will cause conflicts with this patchset, and if
> > > you/Mimi are going to take this via the IMA/EVM tree - which is fine
> > > with me - I need to take that into account when merging things in the
> > > LSM tree during this cycle.  It's not a big deal either way, it would
> > > just be nice to get an answer on that within the next week.
> > 
> > Similarly there are other changes for IMA and EVM.  If you're willing to
> > create
> > a topic branch for just the v10 patch set that can be merged into your tree
> > and
> > into my tree, I'm fine with your upstreaming v10. (I'll wait to send my pull
> > request after yours.)  Roberto will add my Ack's to the integrity, IMA, and
> > EVM
> > related patches.  However if you're not willing to create a topic branch,
> > I'll
> > upstream the v10 patch set.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of sharing topic branches across different subsystem
> trees, I'd much rather just agree that one tree or another takes the
> patchset and the others plan accordingly.

Just curious why not?

> Based on our previous
> discussions I was under the impression that you wanted me to merge
> this patchset into lsm/dev, but it looks like that is no longer the
> case - which is okay by me.

Paul, I don't recall saying that.  Please go ahead and upstream it.  Roberto can
add my acks accordingly.

Mimi

> Assuming Roberto gets a v10 out soon, do you expect to merge the v10
> patchset and send it up during the upcoming merge window (for v6.9),
> or are you expecting to wait until after the upcoming merge window
> closes and target v6.10?  Once again, either is fine, I'm just trying
> to coordinate this with other patches.