linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] selinux: use consistent pointer types for boolean arrays

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]

Message-ID: <CAJ2a_DfpYp_n8F7rg5yRAK9S8r0GcTQFHfB=d6cwRSHwMUjCyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 16:57:52 +0100
From:   Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Austin Kim <austin.kim@....com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Yang Li <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] selinux: use consistent pointer types for boolean arrays

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 17:01, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:21 AM Christian Göttsche
> <cgzones@...glemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Use a consistent type of unsigned int* for boolean arrays, instead of
> > using implicit casts to and from int*.
> >
> > Reported by sparse:
> >
> >     security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1481:30: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different signedness)
> >     security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1481:30:    expected unsigned int *
> >     security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1481:30:    got int *[addressable] values
> >     security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1398:48: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different signedness)
> >     security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1398:48:    expected int *values
> >     security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1398:48:    got unsigned int *bool_pending_values
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
> >
> > ---
> > A more invasive change would be to change all boolean arrays to bool*.
>
> I think that might be a worthwhile change, although that can happen at
> a later date.
>
> A quick general comment: please try to stick to 80-char long lines.  I
> realize Linus/checkpatch.pl has started to allow longer lines but I
> would still like SELinux to try and keep to 80-chars or under.
>
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > index 6901dc07680d..7865926962ab 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > @@ -3175,7 +3175,8 @@ int security_get_bool_value(struct selinux_state *state,
> >  static int security_preserve_bools(struct selinux_policy *oldpolicy,
> >                                 struct selinux_policy *newpolicy)
> >  {
> > -       int rc, *bvalues = NULL;
> > +       int rc;
> > +       unsigned int *bvalues = NULL;
>
> Doesn't this cause a type mismatch (unsigned int vs int) when an entry
> from bvalues[] is assigned to cond_bool_datum::state later in the
> security_preserve_bools() function?

Yes, but those variables *should* only hold the values 0 or 1.
But probably it's better to re-spin for 5.19 with all arrays and
cond_bool_datum::state converted to literal bool type.

>
> --
> paul-moore.com