On 1/11/2023 1:01 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:09 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Use the LSM ID number instead of the LSM name to identify which
>> security module's attibute data should be shown in /proc/self/attr.
>> The security_[gs]etprocattr() functions have been changed to expect
>> the LSM ID. The change from a string comparison to an integer comparison
>> in these functions will provide a minor performance improvement.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> fs/proc/base.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
>> fs/proc/internal.h | 2 +-
>> include/linux/security.h | 11 +++++------
>> security/security.c | 11 +++++------
>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> ..
>
>> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
>> index 9e479d7d202b..9328b6b07dfc 100644
>> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
>> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
>> @@ -2837,27 +2838,27 @@ static const struct inode_operations proc_##LSM##_attr_dir_inode_ops = { \
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_SMACK
>> static const struct pid_entry smack_attr_dir_stuff[] = {
>> - ATTR("smack", "current", 0666),
>> + ATTR(LSM_ID_SMACK, "current", 0666),
>> };
>> LSM_DIR_OPS(smack);
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR
>> static const struct pid_entry apparmor_attr_dir_stuff[] = {
>> - ATTR("apparmor", "current", 0666),
>> - ATTR("apparmor", "prev", 0444),
>> - ATTR("apparmor", "exec", 0666),
>> + ATTR(LSM_ID_APPARMOR, "current", 0666),
>> + ATTR(LSM_ID_APPARMOR, "prev", 0444),
>> + ATTR(LSM_ID_APPARMOR, "exec", 0666),
>> };
>> LSM_DIR_OPS(apparmor);
>> #endif
>>
>> static const struct pid_entry attr_dir_stuff[] = {
>> - ATTR(NULL, "current", 0666),
>> - ATTR(NULL, "prev", 0444),
>> - ATTR(NULL, "exec", 0666),
>> - ATTR(NULL, "fscreate", 0666),
>> - ATTR(NULL, "keycreate", 0666),
>> - ATTR(NULL, "sockcreate", 0666),
>> + ATTR(0, "current", 0666),
>> + ATTR(0, "prev", 0444),
>> + ATTR(0, "exec", 0666),
>> + ATTR(0, "fscreate", 0666),
>> + ATTR(0, "keycreate", 0666),
>> + ATTR(0, "sockcreate", 0666),
> See the discussion in patch 1/8, we should use a macro instead of a 0
> here (although the exact macro definition is very much up for
> discussion):
>
> ATTR(LSM_ID_UNDEF, "current", 0666),
Or LSM_ID_NALSMID, or whatever. Agreed.
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
