Re: [PATCH v4 10/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook audit_rule_match

Xu Kuohai
2024-07-20T09:31:18Z

On 7/19/2024 10:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2024 Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> To be consistent with most LSM hooks, convert the return value of
>> hook audit_rule_match to 0 or a negative error code.
>>
>> Before:
>> - Hook audit_rule_match returns 1 if the rule matches, 0 if it not,
>> and negative error code otherwise.
>>
>> After:
>> - Hook audit_rule_match returns 0 on success or a negative error
>> code on failure. An output parameter @match is introduced to hold
>> the match result on success.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 3 +-
>> security/apparmor/audit.c | 22 ++++++-------
>> security/apparmor/include/audit.h | 2 +-
>> security/security.c | 15 ++++++++-
>> security/selinux/include/audit.h | 8 +++--
>> security/selinux/ss/services.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++--------------
>> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 19 +++++++----
>> 7 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>
> This is another odd hook, and similar to some of the others in this
> patchset, I'm not sure how applicable this would be to a BPF-based
> LSM. I suspect you could safely block this from a BPF LSM and no one
> would notice or be upset.
>
> However, if we did want to keep this hook for a BPF LSM, I think it
> might be better to encode the "match" results in the return value, just
> sticking with a more conventional 0/errno approach. What do you think
> about 0:found/ok, -ENOENT:missing/ok, -ERRNO:other/error? Yes, some
> of the existing LSM audit_match code uses -ENOENT but looking quickly
> at those error conditions it seems that we could consider them
> equivalent to a "missing" or "failed match" result and use -ENOENT for
> both. If you're really not happy with that overloading, we could use
> something like -ENOMSG:missing/ok instead.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I think we could just block it and see what happens.

> --
> paul-moore.com
>