On 11/9/2022 3:34 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:47 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Add an integer member "features" to the struct lsm_id which
>> identifies the API related data associated with each security
>> module. The initial set of features maps to information that
>> has traditionaly been available in /proc/self/attr.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 +
>> include/uapi/linux/lsm.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 1 +
>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 2 ++
>> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 1 +
>> 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> Everything Greg already said with one additional comment below.
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> index dd4b4d95a172..46b2aa6a677e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> @@ -1608,6 +1608,7 @@ struct security_hook_heads {
>> struct lsm_id {
>> const char *lsm; /* Name of the LSM */
>> int id; /* LSM ID */
>> + int features; /* Set of LSM features */
> I understand why you called the field "features", but I worry it is a
> bit too generic for 32-bits of flags. Let's make it specific to the
> LSM label attributes; how about 'feat_attr', 'sup_attr', or something
> along those lines?
How about 'attrs_used'? I'm open to anything except 'late_for_dinner' :)
> --
> paul-moore.com
