|
Message-Id: <201706060550.HAC69712.OVFOtSFLQJOMFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 05:50:11 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: casey@...aufler-ca.com, igor.stoppa@...wei.com, keescook@...omium.org, mhocko@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org Cc: paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, hch@...radead.org, labbott@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Make LSM Writable Hooks a command line option Casey Schaufler wrote: > > @@ -33,8 +34,17 @@ > > /* Maximum number of letters for an LSM name string */ > > #define SECURITY_NAME_MAX 10 > > > > -static struct list_head hook_heads[LSM_MAX_HOOK_INDEX] > > - __lsm_ro_after_init; > > +static int security_debug; > > + > > +static __init int set_security_debug(char *str) > > +{ > > + get_option(&str, &security_debug); > > + return 0; > > +} > > +early_param("security_debug", set_security_debug); > > I don't care for calling this "security debug". Making > the lists writable after init isn't about development, > it's about (Tetsuo's desire for) dynamic module loading. > I would prefer "dynamic_module_lists" our something else > more descriptive. Maybe dynamic_lsm ? > > > + > > +static struct list_head *hook_heads; > > +static struct pmalloc_pool *sec_pool; > > char *lsm_names; > > /* Boot-time LSM user choice */ > > static __initdata char chosen_lsm[SECURITY_NAME_MAX + 1] = > > @@ -59,6 +69,13 @@ int __init security_init(void) > > { > > enum security_hook_index i; > > > > + sec_pool = pmalloc_create_pool("security"); > > + if (!sec_pool) > > + goto error_pool; > > Excessive gotoing - return -ENOMEM instead. But does it make sense to continue? hook_heads == NULL and we will oops as soon as call_void_hook() or call_int_hook() is called for the first time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.