Re: [PATCH] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks to for the new uring_cmd file op

From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	casey@schaufler-ca.com, joshi.k@samsung.com,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	a.manzanares@samsung.com, javier@javigon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks to for the new uring_cmd file op
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:37:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YtHeDa+rqXCFsd97@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <711b10ab-4ac7-e82f-e125-658460acda89@kernel.dk>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 02:00:36PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I did author the basic framework of it, but Kanchan took over driving it
> to completion and was the one doing the posting of it at that point.

And credit where due, that was a significant undertaking, and great
collaboration.

> It's not like I merge code I'm not aware of, we even discussed it at
> LSFMM this year and nobody brought up the LSM oversight. Luis was there
> too I believe.

I brought it up as a priority to Kanchan then. I cringed at not seeing it
addressed, but as with a lot of development, some things get punted for
'eventually'. What I think we need is more awareness of the importance of
addressing LSMs and making this a real top priority, not just, 'sure',
or 'eventually'. Without that wide awareness even those aware of its
importance cannot help make LSM considerations a tangible priority.

We can do this with ksummit, or whatever that's called these days,
because just doing this at security conferences is just getting people
preaching to the choir.

We can also do this through sessions at different companies.

  Luis