On 11/18/2022 7:10 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 10:14 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>>>> +static int security_check_compact_xattrs(struct xattr *xattrs,
>>>> + int num_xattrs, int *checked_xattrs)
>>> Perhaps the variable naming is off, making it difficult to read. So
>>> although this is a static function, which normally doesn't require a
>>> comment, it's definitely needs one.
>> Ok, will improve it.
>>
>>>> +{
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = *checked_xattrs; i < num_xattrs; i++) {
>>> If the number of "checked" xattrs was kept up to date, removing the
>>> empty xattr gaps wouldn't require a loop. Is the purpose of this loop
>>> to support multiple per LSM xattrs?
>> An LSM might reserve one or more xattrs, but not set it/them (for
>> example because it is not initialized). In this case, removing the gaps
>> is needed for all subsequent LSMs.
> Including this sort of info in the function description or as a comment
> in the code would definitely simplify review.
>
> security_check_compact_xattrs() is called in the loop after getting
> each LSM's xattr(s). Only the current LSMs xattrs need to be
> compressed, yet the loop goes to the maximum number of xattrs each
> time. Just wondering if there is a way of improving it.
At security module registration each module could identify how
many xattrs it uses. That number could be used to limit the range
of the loop. I have to do similar things for the forthcoming LSM
syscalls and module stacking beyond that.
>
