On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 23:33 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2023 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In preparation for moving IMA and EVM to the LSM infrastructure, introduce
> > the file_pre_free_security hook.
> >
> > IMA calculates at file close the new digest of the file content and writes
> > it to security.ima, so that appraisal at next file access succeeds.
> >
> > LSMs could also take some action before the last reference of a file is
> > released.
> >
> > The new hook cannot return an error and cannot cause the operation to be
> > reverted.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/file_table.c | 1 +
> > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 1 +
> > include/linux/security.h | 4 ++++
> > security/security.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
> > index de4a2915bfd4..64ed74555e64 100644
> > --- a/fs/file_table.c
> > +++ b/fs/file_table.c
> > @@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ static void __fput(struct file *file)
> > eventpoll_release(file);
> > locks_remove_file(file);
> >
> > + security_file_pre_free(file);
>
> I worry that security_file_pre_free() is a misleading name as "free"
> tends to imply memory management tasks, which isn't the main focus of
> this hook. What do you think of security_file_release() or
> security_file_put() instead?
security_file_release() would be fine for me.
Thanks
Roberto
> > ima_file_free(file);
> > if (unlikely(file->f_flags & FASYNC)) {
> > if (file->f_op->fasync)
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
