Message ID | 20230309165455.175131-1-mic@digikod.net (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Landlock support for UML | expand |
Richard, Anton, Johannes, what do you think about these UML changes? On 09/03/2023 17:54, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > Hi, > > Commit cb2c7d1a1776 ("landlock: Support filesystem access-control") > introduced a new ARCH_EPHEMERAL_INODES configuration, only enabled for > User-Mode Linux. The reason was that UML's hostfs managed inodes in an > ephemeral way: from the kernel point of view, the same inode struct > could be created several times while being used by user space because > the kernel didn't hold references to inodes. Because Landlock (and > probably other subsystems) ties properties (i.e. access rights) to inode > objects, it wasn't possible to create rules that match inodes and then > allow specific accesses. > > This patch series fixes the way UML manages inodes according to the > underlying filesystem. They are now properly handles as for other > filesystems, which enables to support Landlock (and probably other > features). > > Backporting these patches requires some selftest harness patches > backports too. > > Regards, > > Mickaël Salaün (5): > hostfs: Fix ephemeral inodes > selftests/landlock: Don't create useless file layouts > selftests/landlock: Add supports_filesystem() helper > selftests/landlock: Make mounts configurable > selftests/landlock: Add tests for pseudo filesystems > > arch/Kconfig | 7 - > arch/um/Kconfig | 1 - > fs/hostfs/hostfs.h | 1 + > fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c | 213 ++++++------ > fs/hostfs/hostfs_user.c | 1 + > security/landlock/Kconfig | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/landlock/config | 8 +- > tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c | 381 +++++++++++++++++++-- > 8 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: fe15c26ee26efa11741a7b632e9f23b01aca4cc6
----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Von: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net> > Richard, Anton, Johannes, what do you think about these UML changes? I like them but didn't had a chance for a deeper look so far. :-S Thanks, //richard
On 21/03/2023 22:38, Richard Weinberger wrote: > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> Von: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net> >> Richard, Anton, Johannes, what do you think about these UML changes? > > I like them but didn't had a chance for a deeper look so far. :-S Good! Do you think it could make it for v6.4? Should we push it in -next for testing? Thanks, Mickaël
Hi Richard, any news? On 04/04/2023 15:52, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > On 21/03/2023 22:38, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >>> Von: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net> >>> Richard, Anton, Johannes, what do you think about these UML changes? >> >> I like them but didn't had a chance for a deeper look so far. :-S > > Good! Do you think it could make it for v6.4? Should we push it in > -next for testing? > > Thanks, > Mickaël