On Jul 11, 2024 Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > 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? -- paul-moore.com
