On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:43 PM Mickaël Salaün [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 09:08:13AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:11 AM Mickaël Salaün [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:10:40PM +0000, Günther Noack wrote:

quoted

Landlock's IOCTL support needs to partially replicate the list of
IOCTLs from do_vfs_ioctl().  The list of commands implemented in
do_vfs_ioctl() should be kept in sync with Landlock's IOCTL policies.

Signed-off-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@google.com>
---
 fs/ioctl.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index 1d5abfdf0f22..661b46125669 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c

@@ -796,6 +796,9 @@ static int ioctl_get_fs_sysfs_path(struct file *file, void __user *argp)
  *
  * When you add any new common ioctls to the switches above and below,
  * please ensure they have compatible arguments in compat mode.
+ *
+ * The commands which are implemented here should be kept in sync with the IOCTL
+ * security policies in the Landlock LSM.

Suggestion:
"with the Landlock IOCTL security policy defined in security/landlock/fs.c"

We really shouldn't have any comments or code outside of the security/
directory that reference a specific LSM implementation.  I'm sure
there are probably a few old comments referring to SELinux, but those
are bugs as far as I'm concerned (if anyone spots one, please let me
know or send me a patch!).

How about the following?

"The LSM list should also be notified of any command additions or

"The LSM mailing list..."

 ;)

quoted

changes as specific LSMs may be affected."

Looks good.

-- 
paul-moore.com