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 ? -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
