Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 13 Jul 2019 09:35:53 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To:     Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@gmail.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/12] S.A.R.A.: cred blob management
In-Reply-To: <1562410493-8661-4-git-send-email-s.mesoraca16@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907130921580.21853@namei.org>
References: <1562410493-8661-1-git-send-email-s.mesoraca16@gmail.com> <1562410493-8661-4-git-send-email-s.mesoraca16@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019, Salvatore Mesoraca wrote:

> Creation of the S.A.R.A. cred blob management "API".
> In order to allow S.A.R.A. to be stackable with other LSMs, it doesn't use
> the "security" field of struct cred, instead it uses an ad hoc field named
> security_sara.
> This solution is probably not acceptable for upstream, so this part will
> be modified as soon as the LSM stackable cred blob management will be
> available.

This description is out of date wrt cred blob sharing.

> +	if (sara_data_init()) {
> +		pr_crit("impossible to initialize creds.\n");
> +		goto error;
> +	}
> +

> +int __init sara_data_init(void)
> +{
> +	security_add_hooks(data_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(data_hooks), "sara");
> +	return 0;
> +}

This can't fail so make it return void and simplify the caller.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>