On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:31:50PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:11 AM Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:39:05AM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:23 AM Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > In selinux_add_mnt_opt(), 'val' is allocated by kmemdup_nul(). It returns
> > > > NULL when fails. So 'val' should be checked. And 'mnt_opts' should be
> > > > freed when error.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: 757cbe597fe8 ("LSM: new method: ->sb_add_mnt_opt()")
> > > > ---
> > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > index 3ec702c..4e4c1c6 100644
> > > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > @@ -1052,15 +1052,23 @@ static int selinux_add_mnt_opt(const char *option, const char *val, int len,
> > > > if (token == Opt_error)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > - if (token != Opt_seclabel)
> > > > - val = kmemdup_nul(val, len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (token != Opt_seclabel) {
> > > > + val = kmemdup_nul(val, len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!val) {
> > > > + rc = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + goto free_opt;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > rc = selinux_add_opt(token, val, mnt_opts);
> > > > if (unlikely(rc)) {
> > > > kfree(val);
> > > > - if (*mnt_opts) {
> > > > - selinux_free_mnt_opts(*mnt_opts);
> > > > - *mnt_opts = NULL;
> > > > - }
> > > > + goto free_opt;
> > > > + }
> > > > + return rc;
> > >
> > > At this point rc is guaranteed to be 0, so you can just 'return 0' for
> > > clarity. Also, I visually prefer an empty line between a return
> > > statement and a goto label, but I'm not sure what is the
> > > general/maintainer's preference.
> >
> > Am I supposed to revise and send a patch v4 for this, or let the
> > maintainer do this? :-)
>
> First a few things from my perspective: I don't really care too much
> about the difference between returning "0" and "rc" here, one could
> argue that "0" is cleaner and that "rc" is "safer". To me it isn't a
> big deal and generally isn't something I would even comment on unless
> there was something else in the patch that needed addressing. I care
> a more about the style choice of having an empty line between the
> return and the start of the goto targets (vertical whitespace before
> the jump targets is good, please include it), but once again, I'm not
> sure I would comment on that. The patch subject line is a bit
> confusing in that we already discussed when to use "selinux" and when
> to use "lsm", but I imagine there might be some confusion about using
> both so let me try and clear that up now: don't do it unless you have
> a *really* good reason to do so :) In this case it is all SELinux
> code so there is no reason why you should be including the "lsm"
> prefix.
Thanks for your comments. I was uncertain of the meaning of "lsm". So I
used"selinux: lsm:". I am aware of that now.
Thanks
Gen
>
> You've been pretty responsive, so if you don't mind submitting a v4
> with the changes mentioned above, that would be far more preferable to
> me making the changes. I have some other comments about maintainer
> fixes to patches, but I'll save that for the other thread :)
>
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com
