linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] fs/configfs: Add a callback to determine attribute visibility

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: <ZfIcjeIWaB5RzNye@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:37:17 -0700
From: Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
	Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] fs/configfs: Add a callback to determine
 attribute visibility

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 12:35:27PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> In order to support dynamic decisions as to whether an attribute should be
> created, add a callback that returns a bool to indicate whether the
> attribute should be display. If no callback is registered, the attribute
> is displayed by default.

I'm curious what the strong value is in this extra callback.  As opposed
to not generating the attribute in the absence of a TPM (why create a
config_item at all?), merely having an empty response from the attribute,
or having `->show()` return -ENODEV or similar.

> 
> Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
> ---
>  fs/configfs/file.c       |  13 +++++
>  include/linux/configfs.h | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/configfs/file.c b/fs/configfs/file.c
> index 0ad32150611e..c758bcc11235 100644
> --- a/fs/configfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/configfs/file.c
> @@ -451,6 +451,12 @@ int configfs_create_file(struct config_item * item, const struct configfs_attrib
>  	umode_t mode = (attr->ca_mode & S_IALLUGO) | S_IFREG;
>  	int error = 0;
>  
> +	if (attr->ca_is_visible) {
> +		mode = attr->ca_is_visible(item, attr);
> +		if (!mode)
> +			return 0;

What value do we get from carrying the mode through here?  The API
proposed is "visible or not", which is a boolean.  Overloading that with
"also set the mode" is confusing, and it also can lead to the divergent
codepath problem you mentioned in your response, where
`->ca_is_visible()` fails to return the mode correctly.  If this was simpl
a boolean hook, the code could read like so:


```
	umode_t mode = (attr->ca_mode & S_IALLUGO) | S_IFREG;
	int error = 0;

	if (attr->ca_is_visible && !attr->ca_is_visible(item, attr))
   		return 0;
```

> diff --git a/include/linux/configfs.h b/include/linux/configfs.h
> index 2606711adb18..18011f78ffde 100644
> --- a/include/linux/configfs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/configfs.h
> @@ -112,39 +112,64 @@ static inline void configfs_add_default_group(struct config_group *new_group,
>  	list_add_tail(&new_group->group_entry, &group->default_groups);
>  }
>  
> +typedef umode_t (*configfs_is_visible_t)(const struct config_item *item,
> +					 const struct configfs_attribute *attr);
> +

We don't use typedefs of op functions anywhere else in configfs or
frankly the entire filesystem API.  Adding one here would just introduce
confusion.

>  struct configfs_attribute {
>  	const char		*ca_name;
>  	struct module 		*ca_owner;
>  	umode_t			ca_mode;
> +	configfs_is_visible_t	ca_is_visible;
>  	ssize_t (*show)(struct config_item *, char *);
>  	ssize_t (*store)(struct config_item *, const char *, size_t);
>  };
>  

Thanks,
Joel


-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #306

	"Take a nap on Sunday afternoons."

			http://www.jlbec.org/
			jlbec@...lplan.org