Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named fwsecurityfs

[Nayna]

On 11/20/22 22:14, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Nayna wrote:
> > > On 11/17/22 16:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:03:43PM -0500, Nayna wrote:
> > > > > On 11/10/22 04:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [...]
> > >
[...]
> > > You are correct. There's no namespace for these.
> > So again, I do not understand.  Do you want to use filesystem
> > namespaces, or do you not?
> Since this seems to go back to my email quoted again, let me repeat:
> the question isn't if this patch is namespaced; I think you've agreed
> several times it isn't.  The question is if the exposed properties
> would ever need to be namespaced.  This is a subtle and complex
> question which isn't at all explored by the above interchange.
>
> > How again can you not use sysfs or securityfs due to namespaces?
> > What is missing?
> I already explained in the email that sysfs contains APIs like
> simple_pin_... which are completely inimical to namespacing.  Currently
> securityfs contains them as well, so in that regard they're both no
> better than each other.  The point I was making is that securityfs is
> getting namespaced by the IMA namespace rework (which is pretty complex
> due to having to replace the simple_pin_... APIs), so when (perhaps if)
> the IMA namespace is accepted, securityfs will make a good home for
> quantities that need namespacing.  That's not to say you can't
> namespace things in sysfs, you can, in the same way that you can get a
> round peg into a square hole if you bang hard enough.
>
> So perhaps we could get back to the original question of whether these
> quantities would ever be namespaced ... or, conversely, whether they
> would never need namespacing.

To clarify, I brought up in the discussion about namespacing 
considerations because I was asked about them. However, I determined 
there were none because firmware object interactions are invariant 
across namespaces.  I don't see this changing in the future given that 
the firmware objects have no notion of namespacing.

Thanks & Regards,

    - Nayna