Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:21 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:10 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:25 AM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Netfilter places the protocol number the hook function is getting called > > > > from in state->pf, so we can use that instead of an extra wrapper. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v2: add back '#endif /* CONFIG_NETFILTER */' erronously axed in v1. > > > > Applies to 'next' branch of > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pcmoore/selinux.git/ > > > > > > > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 52 ++++++++++------------------------------ > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c > > > > index e7ebd45ca345..831b857d5dd7 100644 > > > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c > > > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c > > > > @@ -7470,38 +7442,38 @@ DEFINE_LSM(selinux) = { > > > > > > > > static const struct nf_hook_ops selinux_nf_ops[] = { > > > > { > > > > - .hook = selinux_ipv4_postroute, > > > > + .hook = selinux_hook_postroute, > > > > .pf = NFPROTO_IPV4, > > > > .hooknum = NF_INET_POST_ROUTING, > > > > .priority = NF_IP_PRI_SELINUX_LAST, > > > > }, > > > > > > Thanks for the patch Florian, although the name "selinux_hook_*" seems > > > a bit ambiguous to me, after all we have a little more than 200 > > > "hooks" in the SELinux LSM implementation. Would you be okay with > > > calling the netfilter hook functions "selinux_nf_*" or something > > > similar? Absolutely. > > > If you don't have time I can do the rename during the merge > > > assuming we can all agree on a name. I'll submit a v3. > > Since selinux_ip_forward() and selinux_ip_postroute() are used only in > > the hook functions, how about changing their signature and using them > > as hooks directly? That would solve the naming and also remove a few > > extra lines of boilerplate. > > No argument against that from me, although you should be able to do > the same for selinux_ip_output() as well unless I missed a caller. I'll have a look, thanks for the pointers.
