On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 11:07 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > However, as reported by VFS maintainers, successful mknod operation does > > not mean that the dentry always has an inode attached to it (for example, > > not for FIFOs on a SAMBA mount). > > > > If that condition happens, the kernel crashes when > > security_path_post_mknod() attempts to verify if the inode associated to > > the dentry is private. > > This is an example of why making the LSM hook more generic than needed didn't > work. Based on the discussion there is no valid reason for making the hook more > generic. I agree, I think we all do, but I don't think we want to get into process discussions in the patch description. The description explains the original motivation for the buggy commit, the problem it caused, and the solution; that's enough IMHO. -- paul-moore.com
