[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071027234719.GU8181@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:47:19 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
Cc: casey@...aufler-ca.com, akpm@...l.org, torvalds@...l.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Version 9 (2.6.24-rc1) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:01:12AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> The problem here (As discussed in private mails) is that the for loop
> assumes that the beginning of given user-space buffer is the beginning
> of a rule. This leads to situations where the rule becomes "ecret 20",
> or "cret 20" instead of "Secret 20". Big input buffers/files leads
> smack to recieve a rule like "Secret 20" in fragmented chunks like:
>
> write("<lots of rules before ours>\nSec", ..)
> write("r", 1, ..)
> write("et 20\n<remaing rules after ours>", ..)
>
> Parsing a rule in such tough conditions in _kernel space_ is very
> hard. I began to feel that it will be much easier if we do the parsing
> in a userspace utility and let smack accept only small buffers (80 char).
For crying out louf, all it takes is a finite state machine... BTW, folks,
your parser *and* input language suck. Really. Silently allowing noise
is Dumb(tm).
Please, write the grammar down and _follow_ _it_. AFAICS, trimming the
crap ("we have a number, skip everything until '/', whatever noise we
have there doesn't matter") leads to something like
text: (whitespace line? \n)*
whitespace: [ \t]*
line: label whitespace number whitespace (/ whitespace set whitespace)?
set: number (whitespace , whitespace number)*
label: [!-.0-~]{1,23}
number: [0-9]+
and even that might be too liberal. For fsck sake, all you need is to
keep a struct that would contain
* state
* (partial) number
* list of smack_known, with the first element being the partial one.
* number of characters already seen in label (label itself stored
in the list head ->smk_known)
and that's it - just have a switch by ->state to handle the next character.
Allocate that struct in ->open(), modify in ->write(), apply the entire thing
at once in ->release().
Come on, people, this is ridiculous - why bother reinventing the wheels for
the stuff that belongs to exercises halfway through any self-respecting
introductory textbook? Scary parser, my arse...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists