Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] LSM: Identify the process attributes for each module

[Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>]

On 11/9/2022 3:34 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:47 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> Add an integer member "features" to the struct lsm_id which
>> identifies the API related data associated with each security
>> module. The initial set of features maps to information that
>> has traditionaly been available in /proc/self/attr.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h  |  1 +
>>  include/uapi/linux/lsm.h   | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>  security/apparmor/lsm.c    |  1 +
>>  security/selinux/hooks.c   |  2 ++
>>  security/smack/smack_lsm.c |  1 +
>>  5 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> Everything Greg already said with one additional comment below.
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> index dd4b4d95a172..46b2aa6a677e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> @@ -1608,6 +1608,7 @@ struct security_hook_heads {
>>  struct lsm_id {
>>         const char      *lsm;           /* Name of the LSM */
>>         int             id;             /* LSM ID */
>> +       int             features;       /* Set of LSM features */
> I understand why you called the field "features", but I worry it is a
> bit too generic for 32-bits of flags. Let's make it specific to the
> LSM label attributes; how about 'feat_attr', 'sup_attr', or something
> along those lines?

How about 'attrs_used'? I'm open to anything except 'late_for_dinner' :) 

> --
> paul-moore.com