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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200110095856.76612-1-yehs2007@zoho.com> <e71932ce-0687-02e5-5f34-980c0cad4ae9@tycho.nsa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <e71932ce-0687-02e5-5f34-980c0cad4ae9@tycho.nsa.gov>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:50:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT-8R4iT-V-A+6NvZgG=bh4Knieif2fuKwybnDuXvC6ug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: remove redundant msg_msg_alloc_security
To:     Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc:     Huaisheng Ye <yehs2007@zoho.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>, tyu1@lenovo.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@lenovo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:13 AM Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> On 1/10/20 4:58 AM, Huaisheng Ye wrote:
> > From: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@lenovo.com>
> >
> > selinux_msg_msg_alloc_security only calls msg_msg_alloc_security but
> > do nothing else. And also msg_msg_alloc_security is just used by the
> > former.
> >
> > Remove the redundant function to simplify the code.
>
> This seems to also be true of other _alloc_security functions, probably
> due to historical reasons.  Further, at least some of these functions no
> longer perform any allocation; they are just initialization functions
> now that allocation has been taken to the LSM framework, so possibly
> could be renamed and made to return void at some point.

I've noticed the same thing on a few occasions, I've just never
bothered to put the fixes into a patch.  We might as well do that now,
at least for the redundant code bits; I'll leave the return code issue
for another time as that would cross LSM boundaries and that really
isn't appropriate in the -rc5 timeframe IMHO.

I'll put something together once I finish up the patch/review backlog
from the past few days.  Looking quickly with a regex, it would appear
that inode_alloc_security(), file_alloc_security(), and
superblock_alloc_security() are all candidates.  While not an
allocator, we can probably get rid of inode_doinit() as well.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com