On 7/17/2020 5:14 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
[...snip]
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_bdev_free);
+
+int security_bdev_setsecurity(struct block_device *bdev,
+ const char *name, const void *value,
+ size_t size)
+{
+ return call_int_hook(bdev_setsecurity, 0, bdev, name, value, size);
+}
What is your expectation regarding multiple security modules using the
same @name? What do you expect a security module to do if it does not
support a particular @name? You may have a case where SELinux supports
a @name that AppArmor (or KSRI) doesn't. -ENOSYS may be you friend here.
I expect that some security modules may want to use the same @name / use
the data contained with @name. I cannot speak to the future cases of
other LSMs, but I expect if they want the raw @value, they'll copy it
into their security blob, or interpret @value to a field defined by
their security blob.
Originally, I expected a security module that does not implement a
particular @name no-op with return 0, not -ENOSYS, but I recognize that
error codes are valuable, and it's a trivial change - I'll switch the
security hook to call the hooks while allowing -ENOSYS or 0 in the next
iteration.
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_bdev_setsecurity);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
int security_perf_event_open(struct perf_event_attr *attr, int type)
{
