On 3/14/2025 1:30 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
> The splat quoted in
> 35fcac7a7c25 ("audit: Initialize lsmctx to avoid memory allocation error")
>
> seems to disagree. I see no difference to what nfnetlink_queue is
> doing.
Point. I see no harm in initializing the lsmctx = { } or seclen = 0;
