From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_copy_up_xattr
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:08:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a8d55e0d41a35a1a3c5d3590240d16b@paul-moore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240711111908.3817636-6-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com>
On Jul 11, 2024 Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> To be consistent with most LSM hooks, convert the return value of
> hook inode_copy_up_xattr to 0 or a negative error code.
>
> Before:
> - Hook inode_copy_up_xattr returns 0 when accepting xattr, 1 when
> discarding xattr, -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know xattr, or any
> other negative error code otherwise.
>
> After:
> - Hook inode_copy_up_xattr returns 0 when accepting xattr, *-ECANCELED*
> when discarding xattr, -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know xattr, or
> any other negative error code otherwise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c | 6 +++---
> security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c | 2 +-
> security/security.c | 12 ++++++------
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 4 ++--
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 6 +++---
> 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
...
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 26eea8f4cd74..12215ca286af 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -2675,18 +2675,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_inode_copy_up);
> * lower layer to the union/overlay layer. The caller is responsible for
> * reading and writing the xattrs, this hook is merely a filter.
> *
> - * Return: Returns 0 to accept the xattr, 1 to discard the xattr, -EOPNOTSUPP
> - * if the security module does not know about attribute, or a negative
> - * error code to abort the copy up.
> + * Return: Returns 0 to accept the xattr, -ECANCELED to discard the xattr,
> + * -EOPNOTSUPP if the security module does not know about attribute,
> + * or a negative error code to abort the copy up.
> */
> int security_inode_copy_up_xattr(struct dentry *src, const char *name)
> {
> int rc;
>
> /*
> - * The implementation can return 0 (accept the xattr), 1 (discard the
> - * xattr), -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know anything about the xattr or
> - * any other error code in case of an error.
> + * The implementation can return 0 (accept the xattr), -ECANCELED
> + * (discard the xattr), -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know anything
> + * about the xattr or any other error code in case of an error.
> */
Updating the comment here is good, but considering that we also discuss
the return value in the function header comment, I think it might be
better to just remove this comment entirely and leave the function header
comment as the single source. Duplicated comments/docs tend to fall out
of sync and create confusion.
> rc = call_int_hook(inode_copy_up_xattr, src, name);
> if (rc != LSM_RET_DEFAULT(inode_copy_up_xattr))
--
paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-19 2:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-11 11:18 [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/20] Add return value range check for BPF LSM Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook vm_enough_memory Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 13:46 ` Serge Hallyn
2024-07-19 2:07 ` [PATCH v4 1/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_need_killpriv Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 14:15 ` Serge Hallyn
2024-07-13 8:06 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 2/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:27 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_getsecurity Xu Kuohai
2024-07-12 13:31 ` Simon Horman
2024-07-13 8:07 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 3/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:28 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_listsecurity Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 4/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:29 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_copy_up_xattr Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2024-07-20 9:29 ` [PATCH v4 5/20] " Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook getselfattr Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 6/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:30 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook setprocattr Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 7/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:31 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 08/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook getprocattr Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 8/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:30 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook key_getsecurity Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 9/20] " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:31 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-22 21:35 ` Paul Moore
2024-07-23 7:04 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-23 18:34 ` Paul Moore
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook audit_rule_match Xu Kuohai
2024-07-19 2:08 ` [PATCH " Paul Moore
2024-07-20 9:31 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 11/20] bpf, lsm: Add disabled BPF LSM hook list Xu Kuohai
2024-07-12 17:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-13 8:11 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-07-11 11:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/20] bpf, lsm: Enable BPF LSM prog to read/write return value parameters Xu Kuohai
2024-07-12 15:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/20] Add return value range check for BPF LSM Paul Moore
2024-07-12 16:00 ` Paul Moore
2024-07-12 21:44 ` Paul Moore
2024-07-19 2:13 ` Paul Moore
2024-07-19 3:55 ` Xu Kuohai
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=3a8d55e0d41a35a1a3c5d3590240d16b@paul-moore.com \
--to=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ecree.xilinx@gmail.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shung-hsi.yu@suse.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=xukuohai@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox