Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] lsm: Change inode_setattr() to take struct

[Casey Schaufler]

On 5/31/2023 6:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:55:17AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Which LSM(s) do you think ought to be deprecated?
> I have no idea.  But what I want is less weirdo things messing with
> VFS semantics.

I am curious what you consider a weirdo thing done by LSMs. Things like
io_uring are much stranger than anything an LSM does.

>
>> I only see one that I
>> might consider a candidate. As for weird behavior, that's what LSMs are
>> for, and the really weird ones proposed (e.g. pathname character set limitations)
>> (and excepting for BPF, of course) haven't gotten far.
> They haven't gotten far for a reason usually.  Trying to sneak things in
> through the back door is exactly what is the problem with LSMs.

Mostly developers play by the rules, and we don't let things sneak in.