| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1228257819.2971.197.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:43:39 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 16:47 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> @@ -143,12 +144,13 @@ static struct inode *alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> inode->i_cdev = NULL;
> inode->i_rdev = 0;
> inode->dirtied_when = 0;
> - if (security_inode_alloc(inode)) {
> - if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
> - inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);
> - else
> - kmem_cache_free(inode_cachep, (inode));
> - return NULL;
> + if (security_inode_alloc(inode))
> + goto out_free_inode;
> +
> + /* allocate and initialize an i_integrity */
> + if (integrity_inode_alloc(inode)) {
> + security_inode_free(inode);
> + goto out_free_inode;
> }
>
> spin_lock_init(&inode->i_lock);
> @@ -185,12 +187,20 @@ static struct inode *alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> inode->i_mapping = mapping;
> }
> return inode;
> +
> +out_free_inode:
> + if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
> + inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);
> + else
> + kmem_cache_free(inode_cachep, (inode));
> + return NULL;
> }
You were saying that this is a very hard patch set to break up. So, I'm
trying to find some places that could trim a line or two here and there.
Stuff like this is a primary example.
Pulling that security_inode_alloc() 'if' condition out and sticking it
at the bottom of the function is a change that can stand on its own.
You could put it up at the top of your series, or even send it
separately. It makes this patch smaller and more obvious then.
> +#endif
> +#endif
Personally, I love to see comments on these suckers after a long header
file. My memory sucks.
> +int register_integrity(const struct integrity_operations *ops)
> +{
> + if (integrity_ops != NULL)
> + return -EAGAIN;
> + integrity_ops = ops;
> + return 0;
> +}
Is there some locking to keep this from racing and two integrity modules
both thinking they succeeded? Does it matter?
> +/**
> + * integrity_register_template - registers an integrity template with the kernel
> + * @template_name: a pointer to a string containing the template name.
> + * @template_ops: a pointer to the template functions
> + *
> + * Register a set of functions to collect, appraise, store, and display
> + * a template measurement, and a means to decide whether to do them.
> + * Unlike integrity modules, any number of templates may be registered.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success, an error code on failure.
> + */
> +int integrity_register_template(const char *template_name,
> + const struct template_operations *template_ops)
> +{
> + int template_len;
> + struct template_list_entry *entry;
> +
> + template_len = strlen(template_name);
> + if (template_len > TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!entry)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->template);
> +
> + kref_set(&entry->refcount, 1);
> + strcpy(entry->template_name, template_name);
> + entry->template_ops = template_ops;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> + list_add_rcu(&entry->template, &integrity_templates);
> + mutex_unlock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> + synchronize_rcu();
What's the synchronize_rcu() for here?
> +int integrity_unregister_template(const char *template_name)
> +{
> + struct template_list_entry *entry;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry(entry, &integrity_templates, template) {
> + if (strncmp(entry->template_name, template_name,
> + strlen(entry->template_name)) == 0) {
> + list_del_rcu(&entry->template);
> + mutex_unlock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + kref_put(&entry->refcount, template_release);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(integrity_unregister_template);
Is this frequently called? If so, it might be better to use
call_rcu().
> +/**
> + * integrity_find_get_template - search the integrity_templates list
> + * @template_name: a pointer to a string containing the template name.
> + *
> + * Returns a pointer to an entry in the template list on success, NULL
> + * on failure.
> + */
> +struct template_list_entry *integrity_find_get_template(const char
> + *template_name)
> +{
> + struct template_list_entry *entry, *template_entry = NULL;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &integrity_templates, template) {
> + if (strncmp(entry->template_name, template_name,
> + strlen(entry->template_name)) == 0) {
> + template_entry = entry;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (template_entry)
> + kref_get(&template_entry->refcount);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return template_entry;
> +}
Is there a reason not to do the kref_get() inside the loop? Would save
a line of code.
> +int integrity_collect_measurement(const char *template_name, void *data)
> +{
> + struct template_list_entry *template_entry;
> + int rc = -EINVAL;
> +
> + template_entry = integrity_find_get_template(template_name);
> + if (template_entry) {
> + rc = template_entry->template_ops->collect_measurement(data);
> + kref_put(&template_entry->refcount, template_release);
> + }
> + return rc;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(integrity_collect_measurement);
> +
It's kinda a shame to see 5 or 6 functions which are such carbon copies
of each other. Could you do one of these, and just pass in the ops
function as well as 'data'?
You would have one of these:
+int integrity_generic_template(const char *template_name,
+ void (*func)(void *data), void *data)
+{
+ struct template_list_entry *template_entry;
+ int rc = -EINVAL;
+
+ template_entry = integrity_find_get_template(template_name);
+ if (template_entry) {
+ rc = func(data);
+ kref_put(&template_entry->refcount, template_release);
+ }
+ return rc;
+}
And each measurement function could be something silly like:
int integrity_collect_measurement(const char *template_name, void *data)
{
return integrity_generic_template(template_name,
template_entry->template_ops->collect_measurement,
data);
}
-- Dave
--
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