[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 20:46:08 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/10] fs,landlock: Support filesystem access-control
On 14/05/2020 17:58, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/14/2020 3:39 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 14/05/2020 05:37, James Morris wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2020, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
>>>> index 45cc10cdf6dd..2276642f8e05 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
>>>> @@ -1517,6 +1517,11 @@ struct super_block {
>>>> /* Pending fsnotify inode refs */
>>>> atomic_long_t s_fsnotify_inode_refs;
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK
>>>> + /* References to Landlock underlying objects */
>>>> + atomic_long_t s_landlock_inode_refs;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>> 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?
>
> As no currently stackable modules conflict over the superblock
> (SELinux and Smack are the existing users) there has been no need
> to move its management into the infrastructure. The active push for
> stacking does not (yet) include everything needed for SELinux+Smack.
> It includes what is needed for SELinux+AppArmor and Smack+AppArmor.
> That does not include the superblock blob.
>
> You can include a patch in the landlock set that provides infrastructure
> management of the superblock blob. Feel free to glean it from my proposal.
OK, I'll add it to the next series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
