Re: [PATCH 06/10] security: fix documentation for the path_chmod hook

Stephen Smalley
2019-02-07T14:56:32Z

On 2/7/19 9:32 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 2/7/19 9:09 AM, Edwin Zimmerman wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:50 AM Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:44:54PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
>>>> The path_chmod hook was changed in the commit
>>>> "switch security_path_chmod() to struct path *" (cdcf116d44e7).
>>>> The argument @mnt was removed from the hook, @dentry was changed
>>>> to @path. This patch updates the documentation accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@ispras.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 3 +--
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>>>> index cb93972257be..5d6428d0027b 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>>>> @@ -304,8 +304,7 @@
>>>>    *    Return 0 if permission is granted.
>>>>    * @path_chmod:
>>>>    *    Check for permission to change DAC's permission of a file or
>>>> directory.
>>>> - *    @dentry contains the dentry structure.
>>>> - *    @mnt contains the vfsmnt structure.
>>>> + *    @path contains the path structure.
>>>
>>> May I politely inquire about the value of these comments?  How much
>>> information
>>> is provided by refering to an argument as "the dentry structure" or
>>> "the path
>>> structure", especially when there's nothing immediately above that
>>> would introduce
>>> either.  "Type of 'dentry' argument is somehow related to struct dentry,
>>> try and guess what the value might be - we don't care, we just need
>>> every
>>> argument commented"?
>>>
>>> Who needs that crap in the first place?
>>
>> The comments fill a valuable place to folks like me who are new to the
>> linux security modules.
>> In my spare time, I'm writing a new LSM specifically geared for
>> parental controls uses, and the
>> comments in lsm_hooks.h have helped me out more than once.  Perhaps
>> the comments could
>> be inproved by changing them to something like this:
>> "@[arg] contains the [type] structure, defined in linux/[?].h"
>
> I don't think so.  The point is not what type of structure but what
> object is being passed and why is it relevant to the hook, e.g.
>
> + @path contains the path structure for the file whose permissions are
> being modified
>
> or similar.

It would probably be better to amend the description too to refer to the
argument in context, e.g.

* @path_chmod:
* Check for permission to change the mode of the file referenced by
@path.
* @path the file whose mode would be modified

or similar.

I'd suggest looking to kerneldoc comments in fs/*.c or elsewhere as
better examples.