On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/30/2016 12:52 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 6/30/2016 10:10 AM, Yuval Shaia wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:52:49PM +0300, Dan Jurgens wrote: >>>> >>>>> +static void (*ib_flush_callback)(void); >>>> Do we really want to have such ib_ prefix in security/ directory? >>>> >>>>> + if (ib_flush_callback) >>>>> + ib_flush_callback(); >>>> How about some generic mechanism (such as a list) in case more >>>> modules/drivers would like to register callbacks? >>>> ( assuming this is no longer RFC :) ) >>>> >>> Paul Moore and I were having a higher level discussion about this in the 00/12 thread. I think your suggestion makes sense, perhaps Paul will weigh in when he reaches this patch. >> I'm still working on understanding IB, but my current thinking is very >> similar to Yuval's suggestions. There is a risk of creating a general >> purpose mechanism to solve a specific, isolated problem, but adding a >> LSM notification mechanism does seem like a reasonable thing to do. >> >> My current thinking is to have the LSM framework itself, e.g. >> security/security.c, maintain a list of callbacks (BTW, please make it >> a RCU protected list) with other non-LSM subsystems registering >> callbacks, and specific LSMs making notification calls into the LSM >> framework itself which would handle iterating through the registered >> callbacks. Since we're going down the general purpose solution route, >> I might add an event field and a void pointer to the callback, for >> example: >> >> void lsm_notifier_callback(unsigned int event, void *ptr); >> >> ... I would expect at first we would only have a POLICY_CHANGE event >> (ptr set to NULL), but we may want/need to add other events in the >> future. >> >> Make sense? > > Hmm. Do you think that we'd want to rewhack the audit code > so that it used this new, general mechanism for its callbacks? You aren't talking about the callbacks in common_lsm_audit() are you? I think that's a completely different beast from a LSM notifier callback. I'm not opposed to changes to common_lsm_audit(), but I think that's a different topic and a different thread. -- paul moore security @ redhat _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
