Mimi Zohar
2023-Feb-20 11:08 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v7 2/6] ocfs2: Switch to security_inode_init_security()
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c b/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c > > > > index 95d0611c5fc7..55699c573541 100644> > > > @@ -7277,13 +7289,23 @@ int ocfs2_init_security_get(struct inode *inode, > > > > const struct qstr *qstr, > > > > struct ocfs2_security_xattr_info *si) > > > > { > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > /* check whether ocfs2 support feature xattr */ > > > > if (!ocfs2_supports_xattr(OCFS2_SB(dir->i_sb))) > > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > - if (si) > > > > - return security_old_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, > > > > - &si->name, &si->value, > > > > - &si->value_len); > > > > + if (si) { > > > > + ret = security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, > > > > + &ocfs2_initxattrs, si); > > > > > > The "if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode))" test exists in both > > > security_old_inode_init_security() and security_inode_init_security(), > > > but return different values. In the former case, it returns > > > -EOPNOTSUPP. In the latter case, it returns 0. The question is > > > whether or not we need to be concerned about private inodes on ocfs2. > > > If private inodes on ocfs2 are possible, then ocsf2_mknod() or > > > ocfs2_symlink() would fail to create the inode or symlink. > > > > Correction, previously when returning -EOPNOTSUPP for private inodes, > > xattrs would not be wrriten. By returning 0 without setting si->enable > > to 0, xattrs will be written. > > Ok, but if there is a private inode, we would be setting si->enable to > zero. Should be ok, I guess.si->enable is being set to zero, below, but is conditional on !si->name.This is the last concern, otherwise the patch set looks good.> > > > + /* > > > > + * security_inode_init_security() does not return -EOPNOTSUPP, > > > > + * we have to check the xattr ourselves. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (!ret && !si->name) > > > > + si->enable = 0; > > > > + > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > return security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, > > > > &ocfs2_initxattrs, NULL); >-- thanks, Mimi
Roberto Sassu
2023-Feb-20 12:20 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v7 2/6] ocfs2: Switch to security_inode_init_security()
On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 06:08 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:> > > > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c b/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c > > > > > index 95d0611c5fc7..55699c573541 100644 > > > > > @@ -7277,13 +7289,23 @@ int ocfs2_init_security_get(struct inode *inode, > > > > > const struct qstr *qstr, > > > > > struct ocfs2_security_xattr_info *si) > > > > > { > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > + > > > > > /* check whether ocfs2 support feature xattr */ > > > > > if (!ocfs2_supports_xattr(OCFS2_SB(dir->i_sb))) > > > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > - if (si) > > > > > - return security_old_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, > > > > > - &si->name, &si->value, > > > > > - &si->value_len); > > > > > + if (si) { > > > > > + ret = security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, > > > > > + &ocfs2_initxattrs, si); > > > > > > > > The "if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode))" test exists in both > > > > security_old_inode_init_security() and security_inode_init_security(), > > > > but return different values. In the former case, it returns > > > > -EOPNOTSUPP. In the latter case, it returns 0. The question is > > > > whether or not we need to be concerned about private inodes on ocfs2. > > > > If private inodes on ocfs2 are possible, then ocsf2_mknod() or > > > > ocfs2_symlink() would fail to create the inode or symlink. > > > > > > Correction, previously when returning -EOPNOTSUPP for private inodes, > > > xattrs would not be wrriten. By returning 0 without setting si->enable > > > to 0, xattrs will be written. > > > > Ok, but if there is a private inode, we would be setting si->enable to > > zero. Should be ok, I guess. > > si->enable is being set to zero, below, but is conditional on !si- > > name. > > This is the last concern, otherwise the patch set looks good.Uhm, if the inode is private, security_inode_init_security() will immediately return. So, the condition !si->name should be always true. Thanks Roberto> > > > > + /* > > > > > + * security_inode_init_security() does not return -EOPNOTSUPP, > > > > > + * we have to check the xattr ourselves. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (!ret && !si->name) > > > > > + si->enable = 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > return security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, > > > > > &ocfs2_initxattrs, NULL);