On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:02 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I can't say I agree that it's an access control because although it is > specific to a process it isn't specific to an object. You can still access > the set of objects using other means. It is a mechanism control, preventing > use of io_uring entirely. I see your argument and raise you "capabilities". Granted, we could have a fairly lively debate about the merits of capabilities, which I'm not encouraging here, I'm only mentioning it as a counterpoint and evidence that there is precedent for things like this as "access control". > I'm much more concerned about bugs in io_uring than in xyzzy. The io_uring > people have been pretty good about addressing LSM issues, so it's not > a huge deal, but I never like seeing switches to turn off features because > security is active. > > If no one else shares my concern you can put my comments down to the > ravings of the lunatic fringe and ignore them. Fair enough. FWIW, I appreciate the discussion, even if we didn't quite reach consensus this time around. -- paul-moore.com