Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named fwsecurityfs - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>,
	Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
	Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	George Wilson <gcwilson@linux.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named fwsecurityfs
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:05:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3tbhmL4oG1YTyT/@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88111914afc6204b2a3fb82ded5d9bfb6420bca6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:14:26PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Nayna wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 11/17/22 16:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:03:43PM -0500, Nayna wrote:
> > > > > On 11/10/22 04:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > > I do not understand, sorry.  What does namespaces have to do
> > > > > > with this?
> > > > > > sysfs can already handle namespaces just fine, why not use
> > > > > > that?
> > > > > Firmware objects are not namespaced. I mentioned it here as an
> > > > > example of the difference between firmware and kernel objects.
> > > > > It is also in response to the feedback from James Bottomley in
> > > > > RFC v2 [
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/41ca51e8db9907d9060cc38ad
> > > > > b59a66dcae4c59b.camel@HansenPartnership.com/].
> > > > I do not understand, sorry.  Do you want to use a namespace for
> > > > these or not?  The code does not seem to be using namespaces. 
> > > > You can use sysfs with, or without, a namespace so I don't
> > > > understand the issue here.
> > > > 
> > > > With your code, there is no namespace.
> > > 
> > > You are correct. There's no namespace for these.
> > 
> > So again, I do not understand.  Do you want to use filesystem
> > namespaces, or do you not?
> 
> Since this seems to go back to my email quoted again, let me repeat:
> the question isn't if this patch is namespaced; I think you've agreed
> several times it isn't.  The question is if the exposed properties
> would ever need to be namespaced.  This is a subtle and complex
> question which isn't at all explored by the above interchange.
> 
> > How again can you not use sysfs or securityfs due to namespaces? 
> > What is missing?
> 
> I already explained in the email that sysfs contains APIs like
> simple_pin_... which are completely inimical to namespacing.

Then how does the networking code handle the namespace stuff in sysfs?
That seems to work today, or am I missing something?

If the namespace support needs to be fixed up in sysfs (or in
securityfs), then great, let's do that, and not write a whole new
filesystem just because that's not done.

Also this patch series also doesn't handle namespaces, so again, I am
totally confused as to why this is even being discussed...

thanks,

greg k-h