On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:07 PM Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 07:57:12PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > As I've said before, this commit message needs some work. It currently
> > doesn't
> > say anything about what the patch actually does.
> >
> > BTW, please make sure you're Cc'ing the fsverity mailing list
> > ([email protected]), not fscrypt ([email protected]).
>
> Also, I thought this patch was using a new LSM hook, but I now see that you're
> actually abusing the existing security_inode_setsecurity() LSM hook.
> Currently
> that hook is called when an xattr is set. I don't see any precedent for
> overloading it for other purposes.
I'm not really bothered by this, and if it proves to be a problem in
the future we can swap it for a new hook; we don't include the LSM
in-kernel API in any stable API guarantees.
> This seems problematic, as it means that a
> request to set an xattr with the name you chose ("fsverity.builtin-sig") will
> be
> interpreted by LSMs as the fsverity builtin signature. A dedicated LSM hook
> may
> be necessary to avoid issues with overloading the existing xattr hook like
> this.
Would you be more comfortable if the name was in an IPE related space,
for example something like "ipe.fsverity-sig"?
--
paul-moore.com
