Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a > > wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or > > renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it > > - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the > > patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data(). > > > > The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file > > LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing > > LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace > > provided file/data. > > > > The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a > > file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM > > hook, is left to the security community. > > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling > the existing hook. Either way is fine, as long as both the new and > existing hooks call the existing function. > > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper. > James suggested renaming the LSM hook. > > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful > LSM hook name. The "null" argument is not as much of a concern. Only > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the > "null" argument. > > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data. Eric, are you planning on I'm confused - isn't that what this patchset did? :) > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2? > > Mimi
