On 5/7/25 08:19, Song Liu wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, that was an oversight. It will return -EOPNOTSUPP in the next patch revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Song
Thanks,
Maxime
