On Wed, 2022-12-07 at 08:58 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 19:21 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 9:43 AM Roberto Sassu > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Ensure that for non-void LSM hooks there is a description of the return > > > values. > > > > > > Also, replace spaces with tab for indentation, remove empty lines between > > > the hook description and the list of parameters, adjust semicolons and add > > > the period at the end of the parameter description. > > > > > > Finally, move the description of gfp parameter of the > > > xfrm_policy_alloc_security hook together with the others. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 221 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > 1 file changed, 138 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) > > > > Thanks Roberto, I've merged this into lsm/next with one small tweak (below). > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > > index c35e260efd8c..6502a1bea93a 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > > @@ -677,7 +695,7 @@ > > > * indicates which of the set*uid system calls invoked this hook. If > > > * @new is the set of credentials that will be installed. Modifications > > > * should be made to this rather than to @current->cred. > > > - * @old is the set of credentials that are being replaces > > > + * @old is the set of credentials that are being replaces. > > > > Might as well change "replaces" to "replaced". I'll go ahead and fix > > that up during the merge. > > Thanks a lot! Ops, I found an issue for fs_context_parse_param. It seems that the kernel doc and lsm_hooks.h provide different conventions for it. + David Kernel doc: It should return 0 to indicate that the parameter should be passed on to the filesystem, 1 to indicate that the parameter should be discarded or an error to indicate that the parameter should be rejected. lsm_hooks.h: The LSM may reject it with an error and may use it for itself, in which case it should return 0; otherwise it should return -ENOPARAM to pass it on to the filesystem. Looking at the code, the latter seems the right one. I would send another patch to fix the kernel doc. For this patch, I saw it is already in lsm/next. Paul, should I do an incremental patch or change the one in the repo and you force push it? I would just remove the three lines after the parameters description. Thanks Roberto
