On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:11 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:10:40PM +0000, Günther Noack wrote: > > Landlock's IOCTL support needs to partially replicate the list of > > IOCTLs from do_vfs_ioctl(). The list of commands implemented in > > do_vfs_ioctl() should be kept in sync with Landlock's IOCTL policies. > > > > Signed-off-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/ioctl.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c > > index 1d5abfdf0f22..661b46125669 100644 > > --- a/fs/ioctl.c > > +++ b/fs/ioctl.c > > @@ -796,6 +796,9 @@ static int ioctl_get_fs_sysfs_path(struct file *file, void __user *argp) > > * > > * When you add any new common ioctls to the switches above and below, > > * please ensure they have compatible arguments in compat mode. > > + * > > + * The commands which are implemented here should be kept in sync with the IOCTL > > + * security policies in the Landlock LSM. > > Suggestion: > "with the Landlock IOCTL security policy defined in security/landlock/fs.c" We really shouldn't have any comments or code outside of the security/ directory that reference a specific LSM implementation. I'm sure there are probably a few old comments referring to SELinux, but those are bugs as far as I'm concerned (if anyone spots one, please let me know or send me a patch!). How about the following? "The LSM list should also be notified of any command additions or changes as specific LSMs may be affected." -- paul-moore.com
