On 3/14/2025 9:47 AM, Florian Westphal wrote: > Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If seclen is 0 it implies that there is no security context and that >> the secctx is NULL. How that is handled in the release function is up >> to the LSM. SELinux allocates secctx data, while Smack points to an >> entry in a persistent table. >> >>> seclen needs to be > 0 or no secinfo is passed to userland, >>> yet the secctx release function is called anyway. >> That is correct. The security module is responsible for handling >> the release of secctx correctly. >> >>> Should seclen be initialised to -1? Or we need the change below too? >> No. The security modules handle secctx their own way. > Well, as-is security_release_secctx() can be called with garbage ctx; > seclen is inited to 0, but ctx is not initialized unconditionally. Which isn't an issue for any existing security module.
