diff options
| author | Donggeun Yoo <donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com> | 2026-09-02 00:21:26 +0900 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com> | 2026-09-07 02:24:53 +0100 |
| commit | e24328974a88aa8541e94e8bb8dfa2ade1b3c45d (patch) | |
| tree | 43a2533acc955d11f5cb8be1ecba0ab8ba4cbb1e /Documentation/security/lsm.rst | |
| download | linux-stable-e24328974a88aa8541e94e8bb8dfa2ade1b3c45d.tar.gz linux-stable-e24328974a88aa8541e94e8bb8dfa2ade1b3c45d.zip | |
iio: proximity: vl53l0x-i2c: claim direct mode for raw readsgrafted
vl53l0x_read_raw() starts a single-shot ranging measurement and reads
back the result. Once the triggered buffer is enabled the sensor runs in
continuous mode and its data-ready interrupt is routed to the trigger,
so a concurrent in_distance_raw read disturbs the streaming setup and
never gets its completion, returning -ETIMEDOUT.
The original submission claimed direct mode here, but it was dropped
during review because the driver had no buffer support at the time [1].
Continuous (buffered) mode was later added without restoring the
claim [2], reintroducing the conflict.
Reject direct reads while buffered capture is active by claiming direct
mode around the measurement, as the vl53l1x sibling already does.
Fixes: 762186c6e7b1 ("iio: proximity: vl53l0x-i2c: Added continuous mode support")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20180911160300.GA9212@himanshu-Vostro-3559/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240909101508.263085-3-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/ [2]
Signed-off-by: Donggeun Yoo <donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/security/lsm.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/security/lsm.rst | 131 |
1 files changed, 131 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/security/lsm.rst b/Documentation/security/lsm.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c20c7c72e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/security/lsm.rst @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ +======================================================== +Linux Security Modules: General Security Hooks for Linux +======================================================== + +:Author: Stephen Smalley +:Author: Timothy Fraser +:Author: Chris Vance + +.. note:: + + The APIs described in this book are outdated. + +Introduction +============ + +In March 2001, the National Security Agency (NSA) gave a presentation +about Security-Enhanced Linux (SELinux) at the 2.5 Linux Kernel Summit. +SELinux is an implementation of flexible and fine-grained +nondiscretionary access controls in the Linux kernel, originally +implemented as its own particular kernel patch. Several other security +projects (e.g. RSBAC, Medusa) have also developed flexible access +control architectures for the Linux kernel, and various projects have +developed particular access control models for Linux (e.g. LIDS, DTE, +SubDomain). Each project has developed and maintained its own kernel +patch to support its security needs. + +In response to the NSA presentation, Linus Torvalds made a set of +remarks that described a security framework he would be willing to +consider for inclusion in the mainstream Linux kernel. He described a +general framework that would provide a set of security hooks to control +operations on kernel objects and a set of opaque security fields in +kernel data structures for maintaining security attributes. This +framework could then be used by loadable kernel modules to implement any +desired model of security. Linus also suggested the possibility of +migrating the Linux capabilities code into such a module. + +The Linux Security Modules (LSM) project was started by WireX to develop +such a framework. LSM was a joint development effort by several security +projects, including Immunix, SELinux, SGI and Janus, and several +individuals, including Greg Kroah-Hartman and James Morris, to develop a +Linux kernel patch that implements this framework. The work was +incorporated in the mainstream in December of 2003. This technical +report provides an overview of the framework and the capabilities +security module. + +LSM Framework +============= + +The LSM framework provides a general kernel framework to support +security modules. In particular, the LSM framework is primarily focused +on supporting access control modules, although future development is +likely to address other security needs such as sandboxing. By itself, the +framework does not provide any additional security; it merely provides +the infrastructure to support security modules. The LSM framework is +optional, requiring `CONFIG_SECURITY` to be enabled. The capabilities +logic is implemented as a security module. +This capabilities module is discussed further in +`LSM Capabilities Module`_. + +The LSM framework includes security fields in kernel data structures and +calls to hook functions at critical points in the kernel code to +manage the security fields and to perform access control. +It also adds functions for registering security modules. +An interface `/sys/kernel/security/lsm` reports a comma separated list +of security modules that are active on the system. + +The LSM security fields are simply ``void*`` pointers. +The data is referred to as a blob, which may be managed by +the framework or by the individual security modules that use it. +Security blobs that are used by more than one security module are +typically managed by the framework. +For process and +program execution security information, security fields are included in +:c:type:`struct task_struct <task_struct>` and +:c:type:`struct cred <cred>`. +For filesystem +security information, a security field is included in :c:type:`struct +super_block <super_block>`. For pipe, file, and socket security +information, security fields are included in :c:type:`struct inode +<inode>` and :c:type:`struct file <file>`. +For System V IPC security information, +security fields were added to :c:type:`struct kern_ipc_perm +<kern_ipc_perm>` and :c:type:`struct msg_msg +<msg_msg>`; additionally, the definitions for :c:type:`struct +msg_msg <msg_msg>`, struct msg_queue, and struct shmid_kernel +were moved to header files (``include/linux/msg.h`` and +``include/linux/shm.h`` as appropriate) to allow the security modules to +use these definitions. + +For packet and +network device security information, security fields were added to +:c:type:`struct sk_buff <sk_buff>` and +:c:type:`struct scm_cookie <scm_cookie>`. +Unlike the other security module data, the data used here is a +32-bit integer. The security modules are required to map or otherwise +associate these values with real security attributes. + +LSM hooks are maintained in lists. A list is maintained for each +hook, and the hooks are called in the order specified by CONFIG_LSM. +Detailed documentation for each hook is +included in the `security/security.c` source file. + +The LSM framework provides for a close approximation of +general security module stacking. It defines +security_add_hooks() to which each security module passes a +:c:type:`struct security_hooks_list <security_hooks_list>`, +which are added to the lists. +The LSM framework does not provide a mechanism for removing hooks that +have been registered. The SELinux security module has implemented +a way to remove itself, however the feature has been deprecated. + +The hooks can be viewed as falling into two major +categories: hooks that are used to manage the security fields and hooks +that are used to perform access control. Examples of the first category +of hooks include the security_inode_alloc() and security_inode_free() +These hooks are used to allocate +and free security structures for inode objects. +An example of the second category of hooks +is the security_inode_permission() hook. +This hook checks permission when accessing an inode. + +LSM Capabilities Module +======================= + +The POSIX.1e capabilities logic is maintained as a security module +stored in the file ``security/commoncap.c``. The capabilities +module uses the order field of the :c:type:`lsm_info` description +to identify it as the first security module to be registered. +The capabilities security module does not use the general security +blobs, unlike other modules. The reasons are historical and are +based on overhead, complexity and performance concerns. |
