lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/18] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:14 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> In order to adjust LSM selection logic in the future, this moves the
>> selection logic up out of the individual LSMs, making their init functions
>> only run when actually enabled.
> [...]
>> +/* Is an LSM allowed to be enabled? */
>> +static bool __init lsm_enabled(struct lsm_info *lsm)
>> +{
>> + /* Report explicit disabling. */
>> + if (lsm->enabled && !*lsm->enabled) {
>> + pr_info("%s disabled with boot parameter\n", lsm->name);
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* If LSM isn't exclusive, ignore exclusive LSM selection rules. */
>> + if (lsm->type != LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE)
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + /* Disabled if another exclusive LSM already selected. */
>> + if (exclusive)
>> + return false;
>
> What is this check for, given that you have the strcmp() just below
> here? From a quick look, it (together with everything else that
> touches the "exclusive" variable) seems superfluous to me, unless
> there are two LSMs with the same name (which really shouldn't happen,
> right?).
>
>> + /* Disabled if this LSM isn't the chosen one. */
>> + if (strcmp(lsm->name, chosen_lsm) != 0)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}

Mainly it's for composition with later patches where the name check is
moved. It seemed easier to explain the logical progression with the
hunk here.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-16 03:53    [W:0.102 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site