On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:02 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 02:46:16PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > It looks like I owe you an apology, Luis. While my frustration over
> > io_uring remains, along with my disappointment that the io_uring
> > developers continue to avoid discussing access controls with the LSM
> > community, you are not the author of the IORING_OP_URING_CMD. You
> > are simply trying to do the right thing by adding the necessary LSM
> > controls and in my confusion I likely caused you a bit of frustration;
> > I'm sorry for that.
>
> No frustration caused, I get it.
Thanks for your understanding, I appreciate it as well as your help in
this area.
> > Well, we're at -rc6 right now which means IORING_OP_URING_CMD is
> > happening and it's unlikely the LSM folks are going to be able to
> > influence the design/implementation much at this point so we have to
> > do the best we can. Given the existing constraints, I think your
> > patch is reasonable (although please do shift the hook call site down
> > a bit as discussed above), we just need to develop the LSM
> > implementations to go along with it.
> >
> > Luis, can you respin and resend the patch with the requested changes?
>
> Sure thing.
>
> > I also think we should mark the patches with a 'Fixes:' line that
> > points at the IORING_OP_URING_CMD commit, ee692a21e9bf ("fs,io_uring:
> > add infrastructure for uring-cmd").
>
> I'll do that.
Great, thanks again for the help.
--
paul-moore.com
