Re: [PATCH v4 9/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook key_getsecurity

Paul Moore
2024-07-22T21:35:14Z

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 5:31 AM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> 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 key_getsecurity to 0 or a negative error code.
> >>
> >> Before:
> >> - Hook key_getsecurity returns length of value on success or a
> >> negative error code on failure.
> >>
> >> After:
> >> - Hook key_getsecurity returns 0 on success or a negative error
> >> code on failure. An output parameter @len is introduced to hold
> >> the length of value on success.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 3 ++-
> >> include/linux/security.h | 6 ++++--
> >> security/keys/keyctl.c | 11 ++++++++---
> >> security/security.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> security/selinux/hooks.c | 11 +++++------
> >> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> >> 6 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

...

> >> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> >> index 9dd2ae6cf763..2c161101074d 100644
> >> --- a/security/security.c
> >> +++ b/security/security.c
> >> @@ -5338,19 +5338,35 @@ int security_key_permission(key_ref_t key_ref, const struct cred *cred,
> >> * security_key_getsecurity() - Get the key's security label
> >> * @key: key
> >> * @buffer: security label buffer
> >> + * @len: the length of @buffer (including terminating NULL) on success
> >> *
> >> * Get a textual representation of the security context attached to a key for
> >> * the purposes of honouring KEYCTL_GETSECURITY. This function allocates the
> >> * storage for the NUL-terminated string and the caller should free it.
> >> *
> >> - * Return: Returns the length of @buffer (including terminating NUL) or -ve if
> >> - * an error occurs. May also return 0 (and a NULL buffer pointer) if
> >> - * there is no security label assigned to the key.
> >> + * Return: Returns 0 on success or -ve if an error occurs. May also return 0
> >> + * (and a NULL buffer pointer) if there is no security label assigned
> >> + * to the key.
> >> */
> >> -int security_key_getsecurity(struct key *key, char **buffer)
> >> +int security_key_getsecurity(struct key *key, char **buffer, size_t *len)
> >> {
> >> + int rc;
> >> + size_t n = 0;
> >> + struct security_hook_list *hp;
> >> +
> >> *buffer = NULL;
> >> - return call_int_hook(key_getsecurity, key, buffer);
> >> +
> >> + hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.key_getsecurity, list) {
> >> + rc = hp->hook.key_getsecurity(key, buffer, &n);
> >> + if (rc < 0)
> >> + return rc;
> >> + if (n)
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + *len = n;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >
> > Help me understand why we can't continue to use the call_int_hook()
> > macro here?
> >
>
> Before this patch, the hook may return +ve, 0, or -ve, and call_int_hook
> breaks the loop when the hook return value is not 0.
>
> After this patch, the +ve is stored in @n, so @n and return value should
> both be checked to determine whether to break the loop. This is not
> feasible with call_int_hook.

Yes, gotcha. I was focused on the error condition and wasn't thinking
about the length getting zero'd out by a trailing callback.
Unfortunately, we *really* want to stick with the
call_{int,void}_hook() macros so I think we either need to find a way
to work within that constraint for existing macro callers, or we have
to leave this hook as-is for the moment.

--
paul-moore.com