On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 12:02 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 1/26/22 04:40, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 05:46:32PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >> From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Only the securityfs IMA policy file is ever removed based on Kconfig
> >> options. For this reason, move the IMA securityfs policy file variable
> >> 'ima_policy' into the ima_namespace.
> >>
> >> Move the other IMA securityfs files onto the stack since they are not
> >> needed outside the function where they are created in. Also, their cleanup
> >> is automatically handled by the filesystem upon umount of a virtualized
> >> securityfs instance, so they don't need to be explicitly freed.
> > I'd reverse the explantion in the commit and mention the securityfs
> > change that makes this move possible which is patch 3 in this version of
> > the series ("securityfs: rework dentry creation"); something like:
> >
> > Earlier we simplified how dentry creation and deletion is manged in
> > securityfs. This allows us to move IMA securityfs files from global
> > variables directly into ima_fs_ns_init() itself. We can now rely on
> > those dentries to be cleaned up when the securityfs instance is cleaned
> > when the last reference to it is dropped.
> >
> > Things are slightly different for the initial ima namespace. In contrast
> > to non-initial ima namespaces it has pinning logic binding the lifetime
> > of the securityfs superblock to created dentries. We need to keep this
> > behavior to not regress userspace. Since ima never removes most of the
> > securityfs files the initial securityfs instance stays pinned. This also
> > means even for the initial ima namespace we don't need to keep
> > references to these dentries anywhere.
> >
> > The ima_policy file is the exception since ima can end up removing it if
> > a non-default policy is written at some point.
> >
> > Last sentence should be checked for sensibility by ima folks.
>
> I remove the if clause and took the other text as-is...
Or replace it with, "on systems that don't allow reading or extending
the IMA custom policy."
thanks,
Mimi
