[PATCH v3 1/7] security: rename security_kernel_read_file() hook

James Morris [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, 24 May 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Below is where I suggest you start on sorting out these security hooks.
- Adding a security_kernel_arg to catch when you want to allow/deny the
  use of an argument to a syscall.  What security_kernel_file_read and
  security_kernel_file_post_read have been abused for.

NAK. This abstraction is too semantically weak.

LSM hooks need to map to stronger semantics so we can reason about what 
the hook and the policy is supposed to be mediating.

I will take that as an extremely weak nack as all I did was expose the
existing code and what the code is currently doing.  I don't see how you
can NAK what is already being merged and used.

I will be happy to see a better proposal.

The best I can see is to take each and every syscall that my patch
is calling syscall_kernel_arg and make it it's own hook without an
enumeration.  I did not see any real duplication between the cases in my
enumeration so I don't think that will be a problem.  Maybe a bit of a
challenge for loadpin but otherwise not.

Thank you in this for understanding why I am having problems with the
current hook.

Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html