[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       selinux
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 03/14] LSM/SELinux: inode_{get,set,notify}secctx hooks
From:       "David P. Quigley" <dpquigl () tycho ! nsa ! gov>
Date:       2008-12-05 17:32:55
Message-ID: 1228498375.15920.47.camel () moss-terrapins ! epoch ! ncsc ! mil
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 10:25 -0500, David P. Quigley wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 20:58 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, David P. Quigley wrote:
> > 
> > > + * @inode_getsecctx:
> > > + * 	Returns a string containing all relavent security context information
> > > + *
> > > + * 	@inode we wish to set the security context of.
> > > + *	@ctx is a pointer in which to place the allocated security context.
> > > + *	@ctxlen points to the place to put the length of @ctx.
> > >   * This is the main security structure.
> > >   */
> > >  struct security_operations {
> > > @@ -1479,6 +1514,10 @@ struct security_operations {
> > >  	int (*secctx_to_secid) (const char *secdata, u32 seclen, u32 *secid);
> > >  	void (*release_secctx) (char *secdata, u32 seclen);
> > >  
> > > +	int (*inode_notifysecctx)(struct inode *inode, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen);
> > > +	int (*inode_setsecctx)(struct dentry *dentry, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen);
> > > +	int (*inode_getsecctx)(struct inode *inode, void **ctx, u32 *ctxlen);
> > 
> > For inode_getsecctx(), you're returning the length via the return value, 
> > so you should not also need to pass in a pointer to ctxlen, right?
> > 
> > IMHO, it's clearer and simpler to always only return error status from 
> > these kinds of functions, and to pass things like size back via pointer 
> > args, although it seems that a few mixed return functions have crept in to 
> > the code over time.  My preference would be to convert it to return value 
> > is error status only, with the length entirely separate as a pointer arg.
> > 
> > 
> > - James
> 
> I'll have to look into why we did it this way. The discussion for these
> patches happened many months ago so I don't remember why it was done
> this way. I remember at the time getting an approval for the approach
> but a desire not to merge the patch while there were no users of it.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> --
> This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
> If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
> the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

So I can't find why I designed the interface this way and James' request
seems completely reasonable so we will move over to that.

Dave


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]