On 7/19/2024 10:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Jul 11, 2024 Xu Kuohai <xukuo...@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
To be consistent with most LSM hooks, convert the return value of
hook inode_copy_up_xattr to 0 or a negative error code.
Before:
- Hook inode_copy_up_xattr returns 0 when accepting xattr, 1 when
discarding xattr, -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know xattr, or any
other negative error code otherwise.
After:
- Hook inode_copy_up_xattr returns 0 when accepting xattr, *-ECANCELED*
when discarding xattr, -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know xattr, or
any other negative error code otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuo...@huawei.com>
---
fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c | 6 +++---
security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c | 2 +-
security/security.c | 12 ++++++------
security/selinux/hooks.c | 4 ++--
security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 6 +++---
5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
...
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 26eea8f4cd74..12215ca286af 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -2675,18 +2675,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_inode_copy_up);
* lower layer to the union/overlay layer. The caller is responsible for
* reading and writing the xattrs, this hook is merely a filter.
*
- * Return: Returns 0 to accept the xattr, 1 to discard the xattr, -EOPNOTSUPP
- * if the security module does not know about attribute, or a negative
- * error code to abort the copy up.
+ * Return: Returns 0 to accept the xattr, -ECANCELED to discard the xattr,
+ * -EOPNOTSUPP if the security module does not know about attribute,
+ * or a negative error code to abort the copy up.
*/
int security_inode_copy_up_xattr(struct dentry *src, const char *name)
{
int rc;
/*
- * The implementation can return 0 (accept the xattr), 1 (discard the
- * xattr), -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know anything about the xattr or
- * any other error code in case of an error.
+ * The implementation can return 0 (accept the xattr), -ECANCELED
+ * (discard the xattr), -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not know anything
+ * about the xattr or any other error code in case of an error.
*/
Updating the comment here is good, but considering that we also discuss
the return value in the function header comment, I think it might be
better to just remove this comment entirely and leave the function header
comment as the single source. Duplicated comments/docs tend to fall out
of sync and create confusion.
OK, will do
rc = call_int_hook(inode_copy_up_xattr, src, name);
if (rc != LSM_RET_DEFAULT(inode_copy_up_xattr))
--
paul-moore.com
