On 10/14/2024 2:29 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:14:44AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> LSM: Replace secctx/len pairs with lsm_context >> >> Several of the Linux Security Module (LSM) interfaces use a pair of >> pointers for transmitting security context data and data length. The >> data passed is refered to as a security context. While all existing >> modules provide nul terminated strings, there is no requirement that >> they to so. Hence, the length is necessary. >> >> Security contexts are provided by a number of interfaces. The interface >> security_release_secctx() is used when the caller is finished with the >> data. Each of the security modules that provide security contexts manages >> them differently. This was safe in the past, because only one security >> module that provides security contexts is allowed to be active. To allow >> multiple active modules that use security contexts it is necessary to >> identify which security module created a security context. Adding a third >> pointer to the interfaces for the LSM identification is not appealing. >> >> A new structure, lsm_context, is created for use in these interfaces. >> It includes three members: the data pointer, the data length and >> the LSM ID of its creator. The interfaces that create contexts and >> security_release_secctx() now use a pointer to an lsm_context instead >> of a pointer pair. >> >> The changes are mostly mechanical, and some scaffolding is used within >> the patch set to allow for smaller individual patches. The next lines in cover letter are: This patch set depends on the patch set LSM: Move away from secids: https://github.com/cschaufler/lsm-stacking.git#lsmprop-6.12-rc1-v4 https://github.com/cschaufler/lsm-stacking.git#context-6.12-rc1-v2 > Hey Casey, > > so this set is not bisectable. Applying just patch 1 will no compile, right? > What is your plan for getting past that? Squash some or all of them into one? > Or are you planning a wider reorg of the patches down the line, once the > basics of the end result are agreed upon? You shouldn't have any trouble with the lsmprop patches in place. > > -serge >
