[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18e375adfe53f8ce5fb38a6a146ad06eaec71a5e.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:06:02 +0100
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, revest@...omium.org,
jackmanb@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] lsm: Clarify documentation of vm_enough_memory
hook
On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 21:11 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:57 PM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> >
> > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h reports the result of the LSM infrastructure to
> > the callers, not what LSMs should return to the LSM infrastructure.
> >
> > Clarify that and add that returning 1 from the LSMs means calling
> > __vm_enough_memory() with cap_sys_admin set, 0 without.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > index 4ec80b96c22e..f40b82ca91e7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > @@ -1411,7 +1411,9 @@
> > * Check permissions for allocating a new virtual mapping.
> > * @mm contains the mm struct it is being added to.
> > * @pages contains the number of pages.
> > - * Return 0 if permission is granted.
> > + * Return 0 if permission is granted by LSMs to the caller. LSMs should
> > + * return 1 if __vm_enough_memory() should be called with
> > + * cap_sys_admin set, 0 if not.
>
> I think this is a nice addition, but according to the code, any value
> greater than zero will trigger the caller-should-have-CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> behavior, not just 1. I suggest updating the comment.
Ok, yes. Thanks.
Roberto
Powered by blists - more mailing lists