Re: lsm sb_delete hook, was Re: [PATCH 4/7] vfs: Convert sb->s_inodes iteration to super_iter_inodes()

Christian Brauner
2024-10-04T07:21:25Z

On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 10:46:27AM GMT, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 06:17:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 03-10-24 23:59:51, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > As for the landlock code, I think it needs to have it's own internal
> > > tracking mechanism and not search the sb inode list for inodes that
> > > it holds references to. LSM cleanup should be run before before we
> > > get to tearing down the inode cache, not after....
> >
> > Well, I think LSM cleanup could in principle be handled together with the
> > fsnotify cleanup but I didn't check the details.
>
> I'm not sure how we tell if an inode potentially has a LSM related
> reference hanging off it. The landlock code looks to make an
> assumption in that the only referenced inodes it sees will have a
> valid inode->i_security pointer if landlock is enabled. i.e. it
> calls landlock_inode(inode) and dereferences the returned value
> without ever checking if inode->i_security is NULL or not.
>
> I mean, we could do a check for inode->i_security when the refcount
> is elevated and replace the security_sb_delete hook with an
> security_evict_inode hook similar to the proposed fsnotify eviction
> from evict_inodes().
>
> But screwing with LSM instructure looks .... obnoxiously complex
> from the outside...

Imho, please just focus on the immediate feedback and ignore all the
extra bells and whistles that we could or should do. I prefer all of
that to be done after this series lands.