On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 06:08:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 09:19:11AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > > On 08/09/2020 20:50, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> This height patch series rework the previous O_MAYEXEC series by not > > >> adding a new flag to openat2(2) but to faccessat2(2) instead. As > > >> suggested, this enables to perform the access check on a file descriptor > > >> instead of on a file path (while opening it). This may require two > > >> checks (one on open and then with faccessat2) but it is a more generic > > >> approach [8]. > > > > > > Again, why is that folded into lookup/open/whatnot, rather than being > > > an operation applied to a file (e.g. O_PATH one)? > > > > I don't understand your question. AT_INTERPRETED can and should be used > > with AT_EMPTY_PATH. The two checks I wrote about was for IMA. > > Al is saying you should add a new syscall, not try to fold it into > some existing syscall. > > I agree with him. Add a new syscall, just like you were told to do it > last time. Sure, we'll do it. In the meantime, could we at least get an explanation about why using faccessat2() instead of a new syscall is wrong? I could see the reasons for separating the exec checks from the file opening, but this time I don't understand. Is it because it brings too much complexity to do_faccessat()? -- Thibaut Sautereau CLIP OS developer
