On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 12:34 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 9:11 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:52 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2024 8:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 2024 Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> Replace the secid value stored in struct audit_context with a struct
> >>>> lsm_prop. Change the code that uses this value to accommodate the
> >>>> change. security_audit_rule_match() expects a lsm_prop, so existing
> >>>> scaffolding can be removed. A call to security_secid_to_secctx()
> >>>> is changed to security_lsmprop_to_secctx(). The call to
> >>>> security_ipc_getsecid() is scaffolded.
> >>>>
> >>>> A new function lsmprop_is_set() is introduced to identify whether
> >>>> an lsm_prop contains a non-zero value.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> include/linux/security.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> kernel/audit.h | 3 ++-
> >>>> kernel/auditsc.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
> >>>> 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > ..
> >
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * lsmprop_is_set - report if there is a value in the lsm_prop
> >>>> + * @prop: Pointer to the exported LSM data
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Returns true if there is a value set, false otherwise
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static inline bool lsm_prop_is_set(struct lsm_prop *prop)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> +}
> >>> If we're going to call this lsmprop_is_set() (see 5/13), we really should
> >>> name it that way to start in this patch.
> >> Agreed. That's an unfortunate artifact of the lsmblob to lsm_prop name change.
> >>
> >>> Considering everything else in this patchset looks okay, if you want me
> >>> to fix this up during the merge let me know.
> >> I can do a v5 if that makes life easier, but if you're OK with fixing it
> >> during the merge I'm completely fine with that. Thank you.
> > For trivial things like this where I've already reviewed the full
> > patchset it's easier/quicker if I just make the change as I can do it
> > and not have to re-review everything. Otherwise it's another revision
> > for you to post, me to review, etc.; granted in that case I'm really
> > just diffing between v4 and v5, not really doing a full review unless
> > something odd pops up in the diff, but I think you get the idea.
>
> Indeed. Go forth and merge. Thanks again.
... and now everything is merged into lsm/dev, thanks everyone!
--
paul-moore.com
