On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 14:29 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 09:31 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, blob_sizes.lbs_xattr contains the total number of xattrs requested
> by LSMs. To stop the loop earlier, at the offset of the next LSM, we
> would need to search the LSM's lsm_info, using the LSM name in
> the security_hook_list structure. Although it is not optimal, not doing
> it makes the code simpler. I could do that, if preferred.
Either way is fine, as long as the code is readable. At minimum add a
comment.
--
thanks,
Mimi
