Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:34:44 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named fwsecurityfs | From | Nayna <> |
| |
On 11/20/22 22:14, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Nayna wrote: >>> On 11/17/22 16:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:03:43PM -0500, Nayna wrote: >>>>> On 11/10/22 04:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > [...] >>> [...] >>> You are correct. There's no namespace for these. >> So again, I do not understand. Do you want to use filesystem >> namespaces, or do you not? > Since this seems to go back to my email quoted again, let me repeat: > the question isn't if this patch is namespaced; I think you've agreed > several times it isn't. The question is if the exposed properties > would ever need to be namespaced. This is a subtle and complex > question which isn't at all explored by the above interchange. > >> How again can you not use sysfs or securityfs due to namespaces? >> What is missing? > I already explained in the email that sysfs contains APIs like > simple_pin_... which are completely inimical to namespacing. Currently > securityfs contains them as well, so in that regard they're both no > better than each other. The point I was making is that securityfs is > getting namespaced by the IMA namespace rework (which is pretty complex > due to having to replace the simple_pin_... APIs), so when (perhaps if) > the IMA namespace is accepted, securityfs will make a good home for > quantities that need namespacing. That's not to say you can't > namespace things in sysfs, you can, in the same way that you can get a > round peg into a square hole if you bang hard enough. > > So perhaps we could get back to the original question of whether these > quantities would ever be namespaced ... or, conversely, whether they > would never need namespacing.
To clarify, I brought up in the discussion about namespacing considerations because I was asked about them. However, I determined there were none because firmware object interactions are invariant across namespaces. I don't see this changing in the future given that the firmware objects have no notion of namespacing.
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
| |