[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6de4f9c0-691e-d7ac-5d08-e1433b0c8bd5@nmatt.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:16:27 -0400
From: Matt Brown <matt@...tt.com>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Add Trusted Path Execution as a
stackable LSM
On 6/8/17 9:05 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I really didn't intend to comment on this further, but I just happened
> to notice:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:43:49PM -0400, Matt Brown wrote:
>> +static int tpe_check(struct file *file, char *method)
>> +{
>> + struct inode *inode;
>> + struct inode *file_inode;
>> + struct dentry *dir;
>> + const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
>> + char *reason1 = NULL;
>> + char *reason2 = NULL;
>> +
>> + dir = dget_parent(file->f_path.dentry);
>> + inode = d_backing_inode(dir);
>> + file_inode = d_backing_inode(file->f_path.dentry);
>> +
>> + if (!tpe_enabled)
>> + return 0;
>
> You have many return statements in tpe_check(), where it is already past
> dget_parent() and thus must have reached:
>
crap, you're right. Will fix this in v3.
>> +end:
>> + dput(dir);
>
> You'll probably want to move the dget_parent() and the following two
> lines to be below the first few checks where you may just return, and
> then be careful not to ever use a return statement anymore.
>
> Alexander
>
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.
