lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v9 0/3] Add introspect_access(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)
    From
    Date
    Arnd and Michael,

    What do you think of "should_faccessat" or "entrusted_faccessat" for
    this new system call?


    On 12/09/2020 02:28, James Morris wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 08:38:21PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
    >>> There is also the use case of noexec mounts and file permissions. From
    >>> user space point of view, it doesn't matter which kernel component is in
    >>> charge of defining the policy. The syscall should then not be tied with
    >>> a verification/integrity/signature/appraisal vocabulary, but simply an
    >>> access control one.
    >>
    >> permission()?
    >>
    >
    > The caller is not asking the kernel to grant permission, it's asking
    > "SHOULD I access this file?"
    >
    > The caller doesn't know, for example, if the script file it's about to
    > execute has been signed, or if it's from a noexec mount. It's asking the
    > kernel, which does know. (Note that this could also be extended to reading
    > configuration files).
    >
    > How about: should_faccessat ?
    >

    Sounds good to me.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-09-14 18:45    [W:5.936 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site