Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lsm: Add/fix return values in lsm_hooks.h and fix formatting

[Roberto Sassu]

On Wed, 2022-12-07 at 08:58 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 19:21 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 9:43 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Ensure that for non-void LSM hooks there is a description of the return
> > > values.
> > > 
> > > Also, replace spaces with tab for indentation, remove empty lines between
> > > the hook description and the list of parameters, adjust semicolons and add
> > > the period at the end of the parameter description.
> > > 
> > > Finally, move the description of gfp parameter of the
> > > xfrm_policy_alloc_security hook together with the others.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 221 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > >  1 file changed, 138 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Thanks Roberto, I've merged this into lsm/next with one small tweak (below).
> > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > index c35e260efd8c..6502a1bea93a 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > @@ -677,7 +695,7 @@
> > >   *     indicates which of the set*uid system calls invoked this hook.  If
> > >   *     @new is the set of credentials that will be installed.  Modifications
> > >   *     should be made to this rather than to @current->cred.
> > > - *     @old is the set of credentials that are being replaces
> > > + *     @old is the set of credentials that are being replaces.
> > 
> > Might as well change "replaces" to "replaced".  I'll go ahead and fix
> > that up during the merge.
> 
> Thanks a lot!

Ops, I found an issue for fs_context_parse_param. It seems that the
kernel doc and lsm_hooks.h provide different conventions for it.

+ David

Kernel doc:

It should return 0 to indicate that the parameter should be passed on
to the filesystem, 1 to indicate that the parameter should be discarded
or an error to indicate that the parameter should be rejected.

lsm_hooks.h:

The LSM may reject it with an error and may use it for itself, in which
case it should return 0; otherwise it should return -ENOPARAM to pass
it on to the filesystem.

Looking at the code, the latter seems the right one. I would send
another patch to fix the kernel doc.

For this patch, I saw it is already in lsm/next. Paul, should I do an
incremental patch or change the one in the repo and you force push it?
I would just remove the three lines after the parameters description.

Thanks

Roberto