From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A4DC28EB4 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 20:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BE9208CA for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 20:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="h58DufOa" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726715AbfFFUxw (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:53:52 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:33313 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726305AbfFFUxw (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:53:52 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id g21so1402005plq.0 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=GDh4x9nn5FphHEoxgu7T7zZCh4Ruw+RsygHDv/0DLDA=; b=h58DufOaV8U71szs11xZaxKosh69vvIP8WRtrCPGE/BNXAvJ0dP6I6HICiSuwjrRbI XgTWjFEG+xdwo9XbjQZ5qmfm/izmBwzPe8w9eB6Hs+YjqFZpAU0gx4wql+sOvDz3wKwo yAtjXfFpAKY6iS2iGaFmAM2yQYa78Jnfi4LK0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=GDh4x9nn5FphHEoxgu7T7zZCh4Ruw+RsygHDv/0DLDA=; b=bPadCcyhN81/GX3bW2RBfRSNCDp8g/xjdGKltmI7kBmqmj9zdDAOfMfi7XuDbfXZid yWYnH1RQe1HdsQagni4bYosTRxpKxBkp/ZWh/G1bnXfWdLFtFBrtKk6JNk3Fd/59Cgba CAbyOx3ZBKdUf0prnixmh4ETYkqHtFhRCbgz1fYoEbq6ChZtEG0juKtIq90r7K+T5D5f Sh9q++dPVsQeDFTr1HT2U7KoUJRg324bMCDEcPyD2iJeFrgFNX+8xYLe9BaHIPU/IOvk DURb7r+e3N+qOCVJd28Gz87N9Dg8AQA5YwsgwCpHFRVvRt8Cw6AAjZuRsAkgrqgkYUBw ra6A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXeO4DsYFxD/RggssU6WA9J/xfrCE0MqQTp6cYTpDMdE5Glr5Gx qePr2SZ5CJ+abPWGbSB6wtOgXg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwv35cOEhL/OhIWRYrUmtG1iz3glBmPub+5l9te2aqVcRgCEax71tYFu1PS6zcJeRdV8kbpzQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8609:: with SMTP id f9mr48709900plo.252.1559854431685; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r77sm54630pgr.93.2019.06.06.13.53.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:53:48 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Casey Schaufler Cc: casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, paul@paul-moore.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/58] Audit: Change audit_sig_sid to audit_sig_lsm Message-ID: <201906061351.B12D10D5D@keescook> References: <20190531231020.628-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <20190531231020.628-23-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <201906011900.143B72A@keescook> <79cc3300-450f-5263-9b81-3186f84010f5@schaufler-ca.com> <201906061138.BFE4CFEE@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 12:17:42PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 6/6/2019 11:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:23:07PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> Maybe lsm_export_is_interesting()? > >> I'd love to discover there's a convention I could adhere to. > > I'd agree "lsm_data" seems meaningless. lsm_export does seem a better > > name, though it has the "export is also a verb" issue. Would "lsm_context" > > or "lsm_ctx"? > > be better? > > > > then we get lsm_ctx_is_interesting() and lsm_ctx_to_secid() ? > > Fiddling around with this led me to think "struct lsmdata" > would work, although maybe "struct lsmblob", in keeping with > the notion it is opaque. Leaving out the "_" helps with the > verb issue, I think. I think ctx or context is right out, as > secctx is the string representation, and it would really confuse > things. Ah yeah, good point on "context". Does "blob" conflict with the existing "blob" stuff? If it's always going to be u32 data, do we want it to be lsm_u32 ? Or, since it's a multiplexor, lsmmux ? -- Kees Cook