linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selinux: remove redundant msg_msg_alloc

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:50:20 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:     Huaisheng Ye <yehs2007@...o.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, tyu1@...ovo.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@...ovo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: remove redundant msg_msg_alloc_security

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:13 AM Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> On 1/10/20 4:58 AM, Huaisheng Ye wrote:
> > From: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@...ovo.com>
> >
> > selinux_msg_msg_alloc_security only calls msg_msg_alloc_security but
> > do nothing else. And also msg_msg_alloc_security is just used by the
> > former.
> >
> > Remove the redundant function to simplify the code.
>
> This seems to also be true of other _alloc_security functions, probably
> due to historical reasons.  Further, at least some of these functions no
> longer perform any allocation; they are just initialization functions
> now that allocation has been taken to the LSM framework, so possibly
> could be renamed and made to return void at some point.

I've noticed the same thing on a few occasions, I've just never
bothered to put the fixes into a patch.  We might as well do that now,
at least for the redundant code bits; I'll leave the return code issue
for another time as that would cross LSM boundaries and that really
isn't appropriate in the -rc5 timeframe IMHO.

I'll put something together once I finish up the patch/review backlog
from the past few days.  Looking quickly with a regex, it would appear
that inode_alloc_security(), file_alloc_security(), and
superblock_alloc_security() are all candidates.  While not an
allocator, we can probably get rid of inode_doinit() as well.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com