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? If you don't have time I can do the rename during the merge > assuming we can all agree on a name. 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. -- Ondrej Mosnacek Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel Red Hat, Inc.
