From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2747AC433E0 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8158221E9 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:05:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A8158221E9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=paul-moore.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3023B8D011A; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2B2778D0090; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1C8448D011A; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0222.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.222]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0992E8D0090 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C245C363D for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:05:49 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77677489218.03.baby10_5e03e68274e6 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D5F28A4E8 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:05:49 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: baby10_5e03e68274e6 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4757 Received: from mail-ej1-f44.google.com (mail-ej1-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f44.google.com with SMTP id t16so7716917ejf.13 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 19:05:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oSUsWf76Ym0VoANrRHrfG8/N3sNNdbLhBCzibzDQLgQ=; b=jzcK6Cm4FLAHY6hu7Ywcx91MTihZUhUT4alDFfGGpy2OI2jruYUMwtMsV2Wc1QvBVj +VdUrk1WN+XglSmpIKB92NTYYak68JExk3D9+huWoZ/eBfo0xv3wRVyOwuJzzCXE4r9f eJ8IZCIwG+aTnvZ5+cwzVFMxJ/HDFPDnJhx7Q9qc/+HZY+3VsGbXWM0SvVaYUrWY1Mjy l3AyzVVBTEwKS78Oiebo2664+u+voD6vBdkl18mgx9ZfdDseA9Sbqs+ix8ZAMrtWkrub Ws8bQQ9E3w37PTz+GDe01/zjrtwfGQTvYyyCeVloOJl/678G9+5Orx6vwAvamNRpBAMP Ho8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oSUsWf76Ym0VoANrRHrfG8/N3sNNdbLhBCzibzDQLgQ=; b=I8kC7pLoyyAdzLYakTAZvBm3jxc4LCeLRz8OGkGfHw76ckiHA2jPbzS903cJbgHxph 8O4pZAdVW6xlwy6SvlMXTFN3SEE3oICbFeUwDfZg2iW4kH5p+IIV0mF4zU7XNn15y2zw MtATRJ91A83mWPDP5HUK0QwYDl04bEl1otdzVp1EU0L/wP8IhIJ4H9x6hRA4HgOgHdqx AhHUaPY6MValKskiQx0pEqmWq1gmHqm5+VJojYGuxewWhKtJvwbw+O7pEZGc15HOzTdn rC4CaxU9GC0KhkvsekDzIo6lR5rojMwiH+sYlh4YBjU5UNUDFRe7hjs0hfzvy87LZ0zb Ii4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533MN8iD7GVl37USQ6JxwzERS2Fp7K2WYJtDuNxu/4Q+j5+gnxL9 eY4RVdisfneyW8uziDhYcSxWFVnO6Pp7QVzOdXBk X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgjmqgSpNil4HfGt5R7VIJWNzi+EIBFt1ZTPt5Iiqemj9MXy/gnGidF9P6nTkpbXAI3b6IhBo/OGNCSFMHEGY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3712:: with SMTP id d18mr5049512ejc.178.1609988747833; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 19:05:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201112015359.1103333-1-lokeshgidra@google.com> <20201112015359.1103333-3-lokeshgidra@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Paul Moore Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:05:36 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface To: dancol Cc: Lokesh Gidra , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexander Viro , James Morris , Stephen Smalley , Casey Schaufler , Eric Biggers , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Eric Paris , Kees Cook , "Eric W. Biederman" , KP Singh , David Howells , Anders Roxell , Sami Tolvanen , Matthew Garrett , Aaron Goidel , Randy Dunlap , "Joel Fernandes (Google)" , YueHaibing , Christian Brauner , Alexei Starovoitov , Alexey Budankov , Adrian Reber , Aleksa Sarai , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, kaleshsingh@google.com, calin@google.com, surenb@google.com, jeffv@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , hch@infradead.org, Daniel Colascione , Eric Biggers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:42 PM dancol wrote: > > On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote: > > Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure > > boolean? It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could > > assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever > > going to be a case where this is not true? > > The converse isn't true though: it makes sense to ask for a secure inode > with a NULL context inode. Having looked at patch 3/4 and 4/4 I just realized that and was coming back to update my comments :) -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com