On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/18/2017 3:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 00:17, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +void __init landlock_add_hooks(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + pr_info("landlock: Version %u", LANDLOCK_VERSION);
>>>> + landlock_add_hooks_fs();
>>>> + security_add_hooks(NULL, 0, "landlock");
>>>> + bpf_register_prog_type(&bpf_landlock_type);
>>> I'm confused by the separation of hook registration here. The call to
>>> security_add_hooks is with count=0 is especially weird. Why isn't this
>>> just a single call with security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks,
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks), "landlock")?
>> Yes, this is ugly with the new security_add_hooks() with three arguments
>> but I wanted to split the hooks definition in multiple files.
>
> Why? I'll buy a good argument, but there are dangers in
> allowing multiple calls to security_add_hooks().
>
>>
>> The current security_add_hooks() use lsm_append(lsm, &lsm_names) which
>> is not exported. Unfortunately, calling multiple security_add_hooks()
>> with the same LSM name would register multiple names for the same LSM…
>> Is it OK if I modify this function to not add duplicated entries?
>
> It may seem absurd, but it's conceivable that a module might
> have two hooks it wants called. My example is a module that
> counts the number of times SELinux denies a process access to
> things (which needs to be called before and after SELinux in
> order to detect denials) and takes "appropriate action" if
> too many denials occur. It would be weird, wonky and hackish,
> but that never stopped anybody before.
If ends up being sane and clear, I'm fine with allowing multiple calls.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
