On 12/13/2020 8:29 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 08:22:32AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:02:12PM -0800, Stephen Brennan wrote:
>>>> -void pid_update_inode(struct task_struct *task, struct inode *inode)
>>>> +static int do_pid_update_inode(struct task_struct *task, struct inode *inode,
>>>> + unsigned int flags)
>>> I'm really nitpicking here, but this function only _updates_ the inode
>>> if flags says it should. So I was thinking something like this
>>> (compile tested only).
>>>
>>> I'd really appreocate feedback from someone like Casey or Stephen on
>>> what they need for their security modules.
>> Just so we don't have security module questions confusing things
>> can we please make this a 2 patch series? With the first
>> patch removing security_task_to_inode?
>>
>> The justification for the removal is that all security_task_to_inode
>> appears to care about is the file type bits in inode->i_mode. Something
>> that never changes. Having this in a separate patch would make that
>> logical change easier to verify.
> I don't think that's right, which is why I keep asking Stephen & Casey
> for their thoughts. For example,
>
> * Sets the smack pointer in the inode security blob
> */
> static void smack_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p, struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct inode_smack *isp = smack_inode(inode);
> struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_task_struct(p);
>
> isp->smk_inode = skp;
> isp->smk_flags |= SMK_INODE_INSTANT;
> }
>
> That seems to do rather more than checking the file type bits.
I'm going to have to bring myself up to speed on the
discussion before I say anything dumb. I'm supposed to
be Not! Working! today. I will get on it as permitted.
