Re: [PATCH] fs: export anon_inode_make_secure_inode() and fix secretmem LSM bypass

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 25.06.25 10:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/23/25 16:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 04:21:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 6/23/25 16:01, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 07:00:39AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:16:27PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>>>>> I'm more than happy to switch a bunch of our exports so that we only
>>>>>> allow them for specific modules. But for that we also need
>>>>>> EXPOR_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES() so we can switch our non-gpl versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?  Any export for a specific in-tree module (or set thereof) is
>>>>> by definition internals and an _GPL export if perfectly fine and
>>>>> expected.
>>>
>>> Peterz tells me EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES() is not limited to in-tree
>>> modules, so external module with GPL and matching name can import.
>>>
>>> But if we're targetting in-tree stuff like kvm, we don't need to provide a
>>> non-GPL variant I think?
>>
>> So the purpose was to limit specific symbols to known in-tree module
>> users (hence GPL only).
>>
>> Eg. KVM; x86 exports a fair amount of low level stuff just because KVM.
>> Nobody else should be touching those symbols.
>>
>> If you have a pile of symbols for !GPL / out-of-tree consumers, it
>> doesn't really make sense to limit the export to a named set of modules,
>> does it?
>>
>> So yes, nothing limits things to in-tree modules per-se. The
>> infrastructure only really cares about module names (and implicitly
>> trusts the OS to not overwrite existing kernel modules etc.). So you
>> could add an out-of-tree module name to the list (or have an out-of-free
>> module have a name that matches a glob; "kvm-vmware" would match "kvm-*"
>> for example).
>>
>> But that is very much beyond the intention of things.
> 
> So AFAIK we have a way to recognize out of tree modules when loading, as
> there's a taint just for that. Then the same mechanism could perhaps just
> refuse loading them if they use any _FOR_MODULES() export, regardless of
> name? Then the _GPL_ part would become implicit and redundant and we could
> drop it as Christoph suggested?

If that is possible, that sounds indeed nice.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb