From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: define a string representation of the kernel_read_file_id enumeration
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:39:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460720383.3256.188.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKu2LH14MCJKY7-y7qOxHSre_fNiP0VuH4ZE9BhyNEiKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 15:46 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > (This patch is being posted as an RFC and has not been compiled.)
> >
> > A string representation of the kernel_read_file_id enumeration is needed
> > for displaying messages (eg. pr_info, auditing). We assume that the
> > string representation of the enumeration will be needed by multiple LSMs
> > and the integrity subsystem. Instead of each defining their own string
> > representation, this patch defines a common one.
> >
> > Each time a new enumeration entry is defined, it will need to be reflected
> > in the list of strings. To simplify keeping the list of strings in sync
> > with the enumeration, this patch proposes using two preprocessing
> > macros: stringify_1 and an a new macro named enumify.
> >
> > In general, preprocessing macros are not recommended. The question is
> > whether using preprocessing macros is preferable to having to remember to
> > update the list each time a new enumeration is defined.
> >
> > With these changes, the simplified version of kernel_read_file_id_str()
> > could be moved to a header.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > fs/exec.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> > include/linux/fs.h | 17 +++++++++++------
> > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index 05e71b6..e9b9b85 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -819,25 +819,25 @@ struct file *open_exec(const char *name)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(open_exec);
> >
> > +static char *kernel_read_file_str[READING_MAX_ID];
> > const char *kernel_read_file_id_str(enum kernel_read_file_id id)
> > {
> > - switch (id) {
> > - case READING_FIRMWARE:
> > - return "firmware";
> > - case READING_MODULE:
> > - return "kernel-module";
> > - case READING_KEXEC_IMAGE:
> > - return "kexec-image";
> > - case READING_KEXEC_INITRAMFS:
> > - return "kexec-initramfs";
> > - case READING_POLICY:
> > - return "security-policy";
> > - default:
> > - return "unknown";
> > - }
> > + return kernel_read_file_str[id];
>
> (Whatever is decided, I'd still prefer an explicit bounds-check on the
> "id" argument here.)
Agreed.
> -Kees
Explicitly hard coding the strings, as you did, is clearer and easier to
read. It would be nice to get a general agreement as to whether using
macros in this case (and similar ones) is acceptable. (Cc'ing
linux-fsdevel)
Mimi
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_read_file_id_str);
> >
> > +void __init kernel_read_file_init()
> > +{
> > + const char *kernel_read_file_upper_str[] = {
> > + __kernel_read_file_id(__stringify_1)
> > + };
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < READING_MAX_ID; i++) {
> > + kernel_read_file_str[i] = strdup(kernel_read_file_upper_str[i];
> > + lower_case(kernel_read_file_str[i];
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > int kernel_read(struct file *file, loff_t offset,
> > char *addr, unsigned long count)
> > {
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > index 23ea886..35ed80f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -2580,13 +2580,18 @@ static inline void i_readcount_inc(struct inode *inode)
> > #endif
> > extern int do_pipe_flags(int *, int);
> >
> > +#define __kernel_read_file_id(id) \
> > + id(UNKNOWN) \
> > + id(FIRMWARE) \
> > + id(MODULE) \
> > + id(KEXEC_IMAGE) \
> > + id(KEXEC_INITRAMFS) \
> > + id(POLICY) \
> > + id(MAX_ID) \
> > +#define __enumify(ENUM) READING_ ## ENUM,
> > +
> > enum kernel_read_file_id {
> > - READING_FIRMWARE = 1,
> > - READING_MODULE,
> > - READING_KEXEC_IMAGE,
> > - READING_KEXEC_INITRAMFS,
> > - READING_POLICY,
> > - READING_MAX_ID
> > + __kernel_read_file_id(__enumify)
> > };
> >
> > extern const char *kernel_read_file_id_str(enum kernel_read_file_id id);
> > --
> > 2.1.0
> >
>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-15 11:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-14 20:49 [RFC PATCH] fs: define a string representation of the kernel_read_file_id enumeration Mimi Zohar
2016-04-14 22:46 ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 11:39 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1460720383.3256.188.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.