On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 9:57 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-06-24 at 10:45 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > My only comment would be that I would not call the new functions with
> > the ima_ prefix, being those in security.c, which is LSM agnostic, but
> > I would rather use a name that more resembles the differences, if any.
>
> Commit 4af4662fa4a9 ("integrity: IMA policy") originally referred to these hooks
> as security_filter_rule_XXXX, but commit b8867eedcf76 ("ima: Rename internal
> filter rule functions") renamed the function to ima_filter_rule_XXX) to avoid
> security namespace polution.
>
> If these were regular security hooks, the hooks would be named:
> filter_rule_init, filter_rule_free, filter_rule_match with the matching
> "security" prefix functions. Audit and IMA would then register the hooks.
>
> I agree these functions should probably be renamed again, probably to
> security_ima_filter_rule_XXXX.
It's funny, my mind saw that the patch was removing those preprocessor
macros and was so happy it must have shut off, because we already have
security_XXX functions for these :)
See security_audit_rule_init(), security_audit_rule_free(), and
security_audit_rule_match().
Casey, do you want to respin this patch to use the existing LSM
functions? It looks like you should have Mimi's and Roberto's support
in this. Please submit this as a standalone patch as it really is a
IMA/LSM cleanup.
Thanks all.
--
paul-moore.com
