[PATCH v9 12/25] security: Introduce file_post_open hook

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 3:07 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 10:33 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:59 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 16:16 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:06 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Roberto,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > > > > > index d9d2636104db..f3d92bffd02f 100644
> > > > > > --- a/security/security.c
> > > > > > +++ b/security/security.c
> > > > > > @@ -2972,6 +2972,23 @@ int security_file_open(struct file *file)
> > > > > >       return fsnotify_perm(file, MAY_OPEN);  <===  Conflict
> > > > >
> > > > > Replace with "return fsnotify_open_perm(file);"
> > > > >
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch set doesn't apply cleaning to 6.8-rcX without this
> > > > > change.  Unless
> > > > > there are other issues, I can make the change.
> > > >
> > > > I take it this means you want to pull this via the IMA/EVM tree?
> > >
> > > Not sure about that, but I have enough changes to do to make a v10.
>
> @Roberto:  please add my "Reviewed-by" to the remaining patches.
>
> >
> > Sorry, I should have been more clear, the point I was trying to
> > resolve was who was going to take this patchset (eventually).  There
> > are other patches destined for the LSM tree that touch the LSM hooks
> > in a way which will cause conflicts with this patchset, and if
> > you/Mimi are going to take this via the IMA/EVM tree - which is fine
> > with me - I need to take that into account when merging things in the
> > LSM tree during this cycle.  It's not a big deal either way, it would
> > just be nice to get an answer on that within the next week.
>
> Similarly there are other changes for IMA and EVM.  If you're willing to create
> a topic branch for just the v10 patch set that can be merged into your tree and
> into my tree, I'm fine with your upstreaming v10. (I'll wait to send my pull
> request after yours.)  Roberto will add my Ack's to the integrity, IMA, and EVM
> related patches.  However if you're not willing to create a topic branch, I'll
> upstream the v10 patch set.

I'm not a big fan of sharing topic branches across different subsystem
trees, I'd much rather just agree that one tree or another takes the
patchset and the others plan accordingly.  Based on our previous
discussions I was under the impression that you wanted me to merge
this patchset into lsm/dev, but it looks like that is no longer the
case - which is okay by me.

Assuming Roberto gets a v10 out soon, do you expect to merge the v10
patchset and send it up during the upcoming merge window (for v6.9),
or are you expecting to wait until after the upcoming merge window
closes and target v6.10?  Once again, either is fine, I'm just trying
to coordinate this with other patches.

-- 
paul-moore.com