You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
fs: Rename anon_inode_getfile_secure() and anon_inode_getfd_secure()
The call to the inode_init_security_anon() LSM hook is not the sole
reason to use anon_inode_getfile_secure() or anon_inode_getfd_secure().
For example, the functions also allow one to create a file with non-zero
size, without needing a full-blown filesystem. In this case, you don't
need a "secure" version, just unique inodes; the current name of the
functions is confusing and does not explain well the difference with
the more "standard" anon_inode_getfile() and anon_inode_getfd().
Of course, there is another side of the coin; neither io_uring nor
userfaultfd strictly speaking need distinct inodes, and it is not
that clear anymore that anon_inode_create_get{file,fd}() allow the LSM
to intercept and block the inode's creation. If one was so inclined,
anon_inode_getfile_secure() and anon_inode_getfd_secure() could be kept,
using the shared inode or a new one depending on CONFIG_SECURITY.
However, this is probably overkill, and potentially a cause of bugs in
different configurations. Therefore, just add a comment to io_uring
and userfaultfd explaining the choice of the function.
While at it, remove the export for what is now anon_inode_create_getfd().
There is no in-tree module that uses it, and the old name is gone anyway.
If anybody actually needs the symbol, they can ask or they can just use
anon_inode_create_getfile(), which will be exported very soon for use
in KVM.
Suggested-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
0 commit comments