... > >> First a suggestion, take it or leave it. > >> The name of the hook _notify() seems misleading to me. > >> naming the hook security_path_watch() seems much more > >> appropriate and matching the name of the constants FILE__WATCH > >> used by selinux. > > > > I guess I'm not too bothered by either name, Aaron? FWIW, if I was > > writing this hook, I would probably name it > > security_fsnotify_path(...). > > Or even just security_fsnotify() > > While I'm not necessarily attached to the name, I feel as though > "misleading" is too strong a word here. Agree. It is not misleading, but I should note that you yourself named the security class "watch", so why the inconsistency? > Notify seems to be an > appropriate enough term to me as every call to the hook, and thus all > the logic to which the hook adds security, lives in the notify/ subtree. > Well, if nobody cares about the name, it's fine by me. I wanted to point your attention to this proposal by David Howells: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/155991706847.15579.4702772917586301113.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ His proposal adds new types of watches, for keyring changes, mount changes, etc and he proposed security hooks for setting new watches named "watch_XXX" and for posting notifications called "post_notification". The latter was later rejected by Stephen Smalley: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/cd657aab-e11c-c0b1-2e36-dd796ca75b75@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/541e5cb3-142b-fe87-dff6-260b46d34f2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Just to have a perspective why the hook name "notify_path" may end up being a bit ambiguous down the road. Thanks, Amir.
