public inbox for linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc: jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
	stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] LSM: add a flags field to the LSM hook definitions
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:24:44 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fadac326-d6cc-4d28-8ebe-b4ed3a06ddd0@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c25833f447e6c00868b352cfea50d2b2@paul-moore.com>

On 4/23/2026 6:19 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2026 Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> Add a field for flags to the definition of LSM hooks.  This allows
>> for hooks to be identified at system initialization for special
>> processing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/bpf_lsm.h       |   2 +-
>>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 614 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   4 +-
>>  kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c          |  10 +-
>>  security/bpf/hooks.c          |   2 +-
>>  security/security.c           |   6 +-
>>  6 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 307 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
>> index 643809cc78c3..d71ba8c87e79 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_LSM
>>  
>> -#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) \
>> +#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, FLAGS, NAME, ...) \
>>  	RET bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__);
>>  #include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
>>  #undef LSM_HOOK
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
>> index 8c42b4bde09c..acda3a02da97 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
>> @@ -18,451 +18,475 @@
>>   * The macro LSM_HOOK is used to define the data structures required by
>>   * the LSM framework using the pattern:
>>   *
>> - *	LSM_HOOK(<return_type>, <default_value>, <hook_name>, args...)
>> + *	LSM_HOOK(<return_type>, <default_value>, <flags>, <single>,
>> + *		 <hook_name>, args...)
>>   *
>>   * struct security_hook_heads {
>> - *   #define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) struct hlist_head NAME;
>> + *   #define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, FLAGS, NAME, ...) struct hlist_head NAME;
>>   *   #include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
>>   *   #undef LSM_HOOK
>>   * };
>>   */
>> -LSM_HOOK(int, 0, binder_set_context_mgr, const struct cred *mgr)
>> -LSM_HOOK(int, 0, binder_transaction, const struct cred *from,
>> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, 0, binder_set_context_mgr, const struct cred *mgr)
>> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, 0, binder_transaction, const struct cred *from,
>>  	 const struct cred *to)
> I think adding a flag field to the LSM_HOOK() macro/definitions is a good
> and useful addition, but I'd prefer if we created a LSM_FLAG_NONE #define
> and used it here just so we could avoid the back-to-back 0's and do a bit
> of self-documentation.

I had LSM_FLAG_NONE initially, but removed it when I saw the amount of code
churn it introduced. I'm happy to put it back.


  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-24 16:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20260225192143.14448-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2026-02-25 19:21 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] LSM: Hook registration exculsivity Casey Schaufler
2026-02-25 19:21   ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] LSM: add a flags field to the LSM hook definitions Casey Schaufler
2026-04-24  1:19     ` [PATCH RFC " Paul Moore
2026-04-24 15:24       ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2026-04-24 20:29         ` Paul Moore
2026-02-25 19:21   ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] LSM: Enforce exclusive hooks Casey Schaufler
2026-04-24  1:19     ` [PATCH RFC " Paul Moore
2026-04-25  0:39       ` Casey Schaufler
2026-02-25 19:21   ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] LSM: Reserve use of secmarks Casey Schaufler
2026-04-24  1:19     ` [PATCH RFC " Paul Moore
2026-04-25 19:03       ` Casey Schaufler

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fadac326-d6cc-4d28-8ebe-b4ed3a06ddd0@schaufler-ca.com \
    --to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox