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

[Mimi Zohar]

On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 16:21 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> 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.

Just curious why not?

> 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.

Paul, I don't recall saying that.  Please go ahead and upstream it.  Roberto can
add my acks accordingly.

Mimi

> 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.