Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks for io_uring_setup()

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:02 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> I can't say I agree that it's an access control because although it is
> specific to a process it isn't specific to an object. You can still access
> the set of objects using other means. It is a mechanism control, preventing
> use of io_uring entirely.

I see your argument and raise you "capabilities".

Granted, we could have a fairly lively debate about the merits of
capabilities, which I'm not encouraging here, I'm only mentioning it
as a counterpoint and evidence that there is precedent for things like
this as "access control".

> I'm much more concerned about bugs in io_uring than in xyzzy. The io_uring
> people have been pretty good about addressing LSM issues, so it's not
> a huge deal, but I never like seeing switches to turn off features because
> security is active.
>
> If no one else shares my concern you can put my comments down to the
> ravings of the lunatic fringe and ignore them.

Fair enough.  FWIW, I appreciate the discussion, even if we didn't
quite reach consensus this time around.

-- 
paul-moore.com