• Paolo Bonzini's avatar
    fs: Rename anon_inode_getfile_secure() and anon_inode_getfd_secure() · 4f0b9194
    Paolo Bonzini authored
    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.
    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: default avatarChristian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
    Reviewed-by: default avatarChristian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
    4f0b9194
userfaultfd.c 58.5 KB