[PATCH -next 0/2] lsm: Change inode_setattr() to take struct

Christoph Hellwig hch at lst.de
Tue May 30 14:28:26 UTC 2023


On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:58:35PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> The main concern which was expressed on other patchsets before is that
> modifying inode operations to take struct path is not the way to go.
> Passing struct path into individual filesystems is a clear layering
> violation for most inode operations, sometimes downright not feasible,
> and in general exposing struct vfsmount to filesystems is a hard no. At
> least as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed.  Passing struct path into random places is not how the VFS works.

> So the best way to achieve the landlock goal might be to add new hooks

What is "the landlock goal", and why does it matter?

> or not. And we keep adding new LSMs without deprecating older ones (A
> problem we also face in the fs layer.) and then they sit around but
> still need to be taken into account when doing changes.

Yes, I'm really worried about th amount of LSMs we have, and the weird
things they do.



More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list