linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 04/10] KEYS: Move KEY_LOOKUP

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: <CACYkzJ5zb2L18=ABUO-AnGBi-PG7SZpEA_1vGZWd4S2nC2wzPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Aug 2022 14:04:17 +0200
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        mykolal@...com, corbet@....net, dhowells@...hat.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, shuah@...nel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        deso@...teo.net, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 04/10] KEYS: Move KEY_LOOKUP_ to include/linux/key.h

On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 5:57 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:14:09AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 08:42 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 05:29:23PM +0200,
> > > roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > >
> > > > In preparation for the patch that introduces the
> > > > bpf_lookup_user_key() eBPF
> > > > kfunc, move KEY_LOOKUP_ definitions to include/linux/key.h, to be
> > > > able to
> > > > validate the kfunc parameters.
> > > >
> > > > Also, introduce key_lookup_flags_check() directly in
> > > > include/linux/key.h,
> > > > to reduce the risk that the check is not in sync with currently
> > > > defined
> > > > flags.
> > >
> > > Missing the description what the heck this function even is.
> > >
> > > Please, explain that.
> >
> > Hi Jarkko
> >
> > sorry, forgot to update the commit description. Will do it.
> >
> > > Also, the short subject is misleading because this *just*
> > > does not move flags.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/key.h      | 11 +++++++++++
> > > >  security/keys/internal.h |  2 --
> > > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/key.h b/include/linux/key.h
> > > > index 7febc4881363..b5bbae77a9e7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/key.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/key.h
> > > > @@ -88,6 +88,17 @@ enum key_need_perm {
> > > >   KEY_DEFER_PERM_CHECK,   /* Special: permission check is
> > > > deferred */
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > +#define KEY_LOOKUP_CREATE        0x01
> > > > +#define KEY_LOOKUP_PARTIAL       0x02
> > > > +
> > >
> > > /*
> > >  * Explain what the heck this function is.
> > >  */
> > > > +static inline int key_lookup_flags_check(u64 flags)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (flags & ~(KEY_LOOKUP_CREATE | KEY_LOOKUP_PARTIAL))
> > > > +         return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This is essentially a boolean function, right?
> > >
> > > I.e. the implementation can be just:
> > >
> > > !!(flags & ~(KEY_LOOKUP_CREATE | KEY_LOOKUP_PARTIAL))
> >
> > Absolutely fine with that, if you prefer.
>
> It can be either, it more depends on if a new function
> is needed in the first place.
>
> E.g. if you are worried about maintaining you could just
> as well define a constant containing the mask, right?

+1 A mask is better.

>
> >
> > > Not even sure if this is needed in the first place, or
> > > would it be better just to open code it. How many call
> > > sites does it have anyway?
> > >
> >
> > Daniel preferred to have this check here.
>
> How many call sites?
>
> BR, Jarkko