On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 7:40 AM Maxime Bélair
<maxime.belair@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Define a new LSM hook security_lsm_manage_policy and wire it into the
> lsm_manage_policy() syscall so that LSMs can register a unified interface
> for policy management. This initial, minimal implementation only supports
> the LSM_POLICY_LOAD operation to limit changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Bélair <maxime.belair@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index fb57e8fddd91..256104e338b1 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -5883,6 +5883,27 @@ int security_bdev_setintegrity(struct block_device *bdev,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_bdev_setintegrity);
>
> +/**
> + * security_lsm_manage_policy() - Manage the policies of LSMs
> + * @lsm_id: id of the lsm to target
> + * @op: Operation to perform (one of the LSM_POLICY_XXX values)
> + * @buf: userspace pointer to policy data
> + * @size: size of @buf
> + * @flags: lsm policy management flags
> + *
> + * Manage the policies of a LSM. This notably allows to update them even when
> + * the lsmfs is unavailable is restricted. Currently, only LSM_POLICY_LOAD is
> + * supported.
> + *
> + * Return: Returns 0 on success, error on failure.
> + */
> +int security_lsm_manage_policy(u32 lsm_id, u32 op, void __user *buf,
> + size_t size, u32 flags)
> +{
> + return call_int_hook(lsm_manage_policy, lsm_id, op, buf, size, flags);
If the LSM doesn't implement this hook, sys_lsm_manage_policy will return 0
for any inputs, right? This is gonna be so confusing for users.
Thanks,
Song
