On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 7:02 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 4:03 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > There is no reason why struct path pointer shouldn't be const-qualified > > when being passed into bpf_token_create() LSM hook. Add that const. > > > > Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 2 +- > > include/linux/security.h | 4 ++-- > > security/security.c | 2 +- > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Paul, > > I just realized that I originally forgot to cc you and > linux-security-modules@ on this entire patch set and I apologize for > that. You can find the entire series at [0], if you'd like to see a > bit wider context. > > But if you can, please check this patch specifically and give your > ack, if it's fine with you. Hi Andrii, Thanks for sending an email about this, many maintainers don't remember to CC the LSM list when making changes like this and I really appreciate it when people do, so thank you for that (even if it is a teeny bit late <g>). To be honest, I saw this patch back on the 14th as I've got some tools which watch for LSM/security related commits hitting linux-next or Linus' tree that don't originate from one of the LSM trees and I thought it looked okay, my ACK is below. > Ideally we land this patch together with the rest of Al's and mine > refactorings, as it allows us to avoid that ugly path_get/path_put > workaround that was added by Al initially (see [1]). LSM-specific > changes are pretty trivial and hopefully are not controversial. Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (LSM/SELinux) -- paul-moore.com
