On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 6:38 AM Christian Brauner
christian.brauner@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 04:38:55PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 15:37, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> From: Christian Brauner christian.brauner@ubuntu.com
>>
>> Make the name of the anon inode fd "[landlock-ruleset]" instead of
>> "landlock-ruleset". This is minor but most anon inode fds already
>> carry square brackets around their name:
>>
>> [eventfd]
>> [eventpoll]
>> [fanotify]
>> [fscontext]
>> [io_uring]
>> [pidfd]
>> [signalfd]
>> [timerfd]
>> [userfaultfd]
>>
>> For the sake of consistency lets do the same for the landlock-ruleset anon
>> inode fd that comes with landlock. We did the same in
>> 1cdc415f1083 ("uapi, fsopen: use square brackets around "fscontext" [ver #2]")
>> for the new mount api.
>
> Before creating "landlock-ruleset" FD, I looked at other anonymous FD
> and saw this kind of inconsistency. I don't get why we need to add extra
> characters to names, those brackets seem useless. If it should be part
Past inconsistency shouldn't justify future inconsistency. If you have a
strong opinion about this for landlock I'm not going to push for it.
Exchanging more than 2-3 email about something like this seems too much.
[NOTE: adding the SELinux list as well as Chris (SELinux refrence
policy maintainer) and Petr (Fedora/RHEL SELinux)]
Chris and Petr, do either of you currently have any policy that
references the "landlock-ruleset" anonymous inode? In other words,
would adding the brackets around the name cause you any problems?
AFAIU, the anon_inode transitions (the only mechanism where the "file
name" would be exposed to the policy) are done only for inodes created
by anon_inode_getfd_secure(), which is currently only used by
userfaultfd. So you don't even need to ask that question; at this
point it should be safe to change any of the names except
"[userfaultfd]" as far as SELinux policy is concerned.
Mickaël Salaün