# Re: \[RFC PATCH v9 0/3\] Add introspect\_access(2) (was O\_MAYEXEC)

- From: Mickaël Salaün \<mic@digikod.net\>
- Date: 2020-09-14 16:46:02 
- List: linux-security-module
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2020/09/188581
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2020/09/188338/t.md

```text
Arnd and Michael,

What do you think of "should_faccessat" or "entrusted_faccessat" for
this new system call?


On 12/09/2020 02:28, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 08:38:21PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> There is also the use case of noexec mounts and file permissions. From
>>> user space point of view, it doesn't matter which kernel component is in
>>> charge of defining the policy. The syscall should then not be tied with
>>> a verification/integrity/signature/appraisal vocabulary, but simply an
>>> access control one.
>>
>> permission()?
>>
> 
> The caller is not asking the kernel to grant permission, it's asking 
> "SHOULD I access this file?"
> 
> The caller doesn't know, for example, if the script file it's about to 
> execute has been signed, or if it's from a noexec mount. It's asking the 
> kernel, which does know. (Note that this could also be extended to reading 
> configuration files).
> 
> How about: should_faccessat ?
> 

Sounds good to me.
```