Re: [PATCH 14/34] fs: Rename anon_inode_getfile_secure() and anon_inode_getfd_secure()

[Christian Brauner]

On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 05:30:17PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The call to the inode_init_security_anon() LSM hook is not the sole
> reason to use anon_inode_getfile_secure() or anon_inode_getfd_secure().
> For example, the functions also allow one to create a file with non-zero
> size, without needing a full-blown filesystem.  In this case, you don't
> need a "secure" version, just unique inodes; the current name of the
> functions is confusing and does not explain well the difference with
> the more "standard" anon_inode_getfile() and anon_inode_getfd().
> 
> Of course, there is another side of the coin; neither io_uring nor
> userfaultfd strictly speaking need distinct inodes, and it is not
> that clear anymore that anon_inode_create_get{file,fd}() allow the LSM
> to intercept and block the inode's creation.  If one was so inclined,
> anon_inode_getfile_secure() and anon_inode_getfd_secure() could be kept,
> using the shared inode or a new one depending on CONFIG_SECURITY.
> However, this is probably overkill, and potentially a cause of bugs in
> different configurations.  Therefore, just add a comment to io_uring
> and userfaultfd explaining the choice of the function.
> 
> While at it, remove the export for what is now anon_inode_create_getfd().
> There is no in-tree module that uses it, and the old name is gone anyway.

That's great, thanks.

> If anybody actually needs the symbol, they can ask or they can just use
> anon_inode_create_getfile(), which will be exported very soon for use
> in KVM.
> 
> Suggested-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>