Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:15:36 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v30 02/12] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management
Message-ID: <202103191213.D6B1B27423@keescook>
References: <20210316204252.427806-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20210316204252.427806-3-mic@digikod.net>
 <202103191114.C87C5E2B69@keescook>
 <acda4be1-4076-a31d-fcfd-27764dd598c8@digikod.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <acda4be1-4076-a31d-fcfd-27764dd598c8@digikod.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 08:03:22PM +0100, Micka?l Sala?n wrote:
> On 19/03/2021 19:40, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:42:42PM +0100, Micka?l Sala?n wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> +static void put_rule(struct landlock_rule *const rule)
> >> +{
> >> +	might_sleep();
> >> +	if (!rule)
> >> +		return;
> >> +	landlock_put_object(rule->object);
> >> +	kfree(rule);
> >> +}
> > 
> > I'd expect this to be named "release" rather than "put" since it doesn't
> > do any lifetime reference counting.
> 
> It does decrement rule->object->usage .

Well, landlock_put_object() decrements rule->object's lifetime. It seems
"rule" doesn't have a lifetime. (There is no refcounter on rule.) I just
find it strange to see "put" without a matching "get". Not a big deal.

-- 
Kees Cook