Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security hook for fs notifications

[Amir Goldstein]

...
> >> First a suggestion, take it or leave it.
> >> The name of the hook _notify() seems misleading to me.
> >> naming the hook security_path_watch() seems much more
> >> appropriate and matching the name of the constants FILE__WATCH
> >> used by selinux.
> >
> > I guess I'm not too bothered by either name, Aaron?  FWIW, if I was
> > writing this hook, I would probably name it
> > security_fsnotify_path(...).
> >

Or even just security_fsnotify()

>
> While I'm not necessarily attached to the name, I feel as though
> "misleading" is too strong a word here.

Agree. It is not misleading, but I should note that you yourself
named the security class "watch", so why the inconsistency?

> Notify seems to be an
> appropriate enough term to me as every call to the hook, and thus all
> the logic to which the hook adds security, lives in the notify/ subtree.
>

Well, if nobody cares about the name, it's fine by me.

I wanted to point your attention to this proposal by David Howells:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/155991706847.15579.4702772917586301113.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

His proposal adds new types of watches, for keyring changes,
mount changes, etc and he proposed security hooks for setting
new watches named "watch_XXX" and for posting notifications
called "post_notification". The latter was later rejected by
Stephen Smalley:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/cd657aab-e11c-c0b1-2e36-dd796ca75b75@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/541e5cb3-142b-fe87-dff6-260b46d34f2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Just to have a perspective why the hook name "notify_path" may end up
being a bit ambiguous down the road.

Thanks,
Amir.