Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: Remove FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER from kernel_read_file() enums | From | Scott Branden <> | Date | Tue, 7 Jul 2020 20:06:23 -0700 |
| |
Hi Kees,
Thanks for looking at my patch series to see how it relates. I see what you're trying to accomplish in various areas of cleanup. I'll comment as I go through your individual emails. 1 comment below.
On 2020-07-07 2:55 p.m., Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:42:02AM -0700, Scott Branden wrote: >> On 2020-07-07 1:19 a.m., Kees Cook wrote: >>> FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER is a "how", not a "what", and confuses the LSMs >>> that are interested in filtering between types of things. The "how" >>> should be an internal detail made uninteresting to the LSMs. >>> >>> Fixes: a098ecd2fa7d ("firmware: support loading into a pre-allocated buffer") >>> Fixes: fd90bc559bfb ("ima: based on policy verify firmware signatures (pre-allocated buffer)") >>> Fixes: 4f0496d8ffa3 ("ima: based on policy warn about loading firmware (pre-allocated buffer)") >>> [...] >>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h >>> index 3f881a892ea7..95fc775ed937 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h >>> @@ -2993,10 +2993,10 @@ static inline void i_readcount_inc(struct inode *inode) >>> #endif >>> extern int do_pipe_flags(int *, int); >>> +/* This is a list of *what* is being read, not *how*. */ >>> #define __kernel_read_file_id(id) \ >>> id(UNKNOWN, unknown) \ >>> id(FIRMWARE, firmware) \ >> With this change, I'm trying to figure out how the partial firmware read is >> going to work on top of this reachitecture. >> Is it going to be ok to add READING_PARTIAL_FIRMWARE here as that is a >> "what"? > No, that's why I said you need to do the implementation within the API > and not expect each LSM to implement their own (as I mentioned both > times): > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202005221551.5CA1372@keescook/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202007061950.F6B3D9E6A@keescook/ > > I will reply in the thread above. > >>> - id(FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER, firmware) \ >> My patch series gets rejected any time I make a change to the >> kernel_read_file* region in linux/fs.h. >> The requirement is for this api to move to another header file outside of >> linux/fs.h >> It seems the same should apply to your change. > Well I'm hardly making the same level of changes, but yeah, sure, if > that helps move things along, I can include that here. > >> Could you please add the following patch to the start of you patch series to >> move the kernel_read_file* to its own include file? >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11647063/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200706232309.12010-2-scott.branden@broadcom.com/ > > You've included it in include/linux/security.h and that should be pretty > comprehensive, it shouldn't be needed in so many .c files. Some people want the header files included in each c file they are used. Others want header files not included if they are included in another header file. I chose the first approach: every file that uses the api includes the header file. I didn't know there was a standard approach to only put it in security.h >
| |