On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:38 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:12 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 6:38 AM Christian Brauner
> > <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 04:38:55PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > > On 11/10/2021 15:37, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Make the name of the anon inode fd "[landlock-ruleset]" instead of
> > > > > "landlock-ruleset". This is minor but most anon inode fds already
> > > > > carry square brackets around their name:
> > > > >
> > > > > [eventfd]
> > > > > [eventpoll]
> > > > > [fanotify]
> > > > > [fscontext]
> > > > > [io_uring]
> > > > > [pidfd]
> > > > > [signalfd]
> > > > > [timerfd]
> > > > > [userfaultfd]
> > > > >
> > > > > For the sake of consistency lets do the same for the landlock-ruleset anon
> > > > > inode fd that comes with landlock. We did the same in
> > > > > 1cdc415f1083 ("uapi, fsopen: use square brackets around "fscontext" [ver #2]")
> > > > > for the new mount api.
> > > >
> > > > Before creating "landlock-ruleset" FD, I looked at other anonymous FD
> > > > and saw this kind of inconsistency. I don't get why we need to add extra
> > > > characters to names, those brackets seem useless. If it should be part
> > >
> > > Past inconsistency shouldn't justify future inconsistency. If you have a
> > > strong opinion about this for landlock I'm not going to push for it.
> > > Exchanging more than 2-3 email about something like this seems too much.
> >
> > [NOTE: adding the SELinux list as well as Chris (SELinux refrence
> > policy maintainer) and Petr (Fedora/RHEL SELinux)]
> >
> > Chris and Petr, do either of you currently have any policy that
> > references the "landlock-ruleset" anonymous inode? In other words,
> > would adding the brackets around the name cause you any problems?
>
> AFAIU, the anon_inode transitions (the only mechanism where the "file
> name" would be exposed to the policy) are done only for inodes created
> by anon_inode_getfd_secure(), which is currently only used by
> userfaultfd. So you don't even need to ask that question; at this
> point it should be safe to change any of the names except
> "[userfaultfd]" as far as SELinux policy is concerned.
There is also io_uring if you look at selinux/next.
Regardless, thanks, I didn't check to see if landlock was using the
new anon inode interface, since both Mickaël and Christian were
concerned about breaking SELinux I had assumed they were using it :)
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
