netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2010281627250.25689@namei.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:27:48 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with
 xfrm flow

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Paul Moore wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:44 AM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:09 PM James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> > > I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note
> > > in the header instead?
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:14 AM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > Please at least change to the struct flowi to flowi_common if we're
> > > not adding a family field.
> >
> > It did feel a bit weird adding a (currently) unused parameter, so I
> > can understand the concern, I just worry that a comment in the code
> > will be easily overlooked.  I also thought about passing a pointer to
> > the nested flowi_common struct, but it doesn't appear that this is
> > done anywhere else in the stack so it felt wrong to do it here.
> 
> With the merge window behind us, where do stand on this?  I see the
> ACK from Casey and some grumbling about adding an unused parameter
> (which is a valid argument, I just feel the alternative is worse), but
> I haven't seen any serious NACKs.
> 
> Any objections or other strong feelings to me merging this via the
> selinux/next branch?

Yes, we should not add unused parameters to functions.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>