Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Landlock supervise: a mechanism for interactive permission requests

["Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:04:54PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 04-03-25 01:12:56, Tingmao Wang wrote:
> > Alternatives
> > ------------
> > 
> > I have looked for existing ways to implement the proposed use cases (at
> > least for FS access), and three main approaches stand out to me:
> > 
> > 1. Fanotify: there is already FAM_OPEN_PERM which waits for an allow/deny
> > response from a fanotify listener.  However, it does not currently have
> > the equivalent _PERM for file creation, deletion, rename and linking, and
> > it is also not designed for unprivileged, process-scoped use (unlike
> > landlock).
> 
> As Amir wrote, arbitration of creation / deletion / ... is not a principial
> problem for fanotify and we plan to go in that direction anyway for HSM
> usecase. However adjusting fanotify permission events for a per-process
> scope and for unpriviledged users is a fundamental difference to how
> fanotify is designed to work (it watches filesystem objects, not processes
> and actions they do) and so I don't think that would be a great fit. Also I
> don't see fanotify expanding in the networking area as the concepts are
> rather different there :).

Yes, I agree.  We should take inspiration from the fanonify interface
though.

> 
> 								Honza
> 
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>