Re: [PATCH 3/7] Add a UFFD_SECURE flag to the userfaultfd API.
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Sat Oct 12 2019 - 19:11:10 EST
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:16 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The new secure flag makes userfaultfd use a new "secure" anonymous
> file object instead of the default one, letting security modules
> supervise userfaultfd use.
> Requiring that users pass a new flag lets us avoid changing the
> semantics for existing callers.
Is there any good reason not to make this be the default?
The only downside I can see is that it would increase the memory usage
of userfaultfd(), but that doesn't seem like such a big deal. A
lighter-weight alternative would be to have a single inode shared by
all userfaultfd instances, which would require a somewhat different
internal anon_inode API.
In any event, I don't think that "make me visible to SELinux" should
be a choice that user code makes.