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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lockdown,selinux: fix wrong subject in some SELinux lockdown checks
In-Reply-To: <20210616085118.1141101-1-omosnace@redhat.com>
References: <20210616085118.1141101-1-omosnace@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Jun 2021 19:00:30 +0200
Message-ID: <8735tdiyc1.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 16 2021 at 10:51, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/testmmiotrace.c b/arch/x86/mm/testmmiotrace.c
> index bda73cb7a044..c43a13241ae8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/testmmiotrace.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/testmmiotrace.c
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void do_test_bulk_ioremapping(void)
>  static int __init init(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned long size = (read_far) ? (8 << 20) : (16 << 10);
> -	int ret = security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_MMIOTRACE);
> +	int ret = security_locked_down(current_cred(), LOCKDOWN_MMIOTRACE);

I have no real objection to those patches, but it strikes me odd that
out of the 62 changed places 58 have 'current_cred()' and 4 have NULL as
argument.

I can't see why this would ever end up with anything else than
current_cred() or NULL and NULL being the 'special' case. So why not
having security_locked_down_no_cred() and make current_cred() implicit
for security_locked_down() which avoids most of the churn and just makes
the special cases special. I might be missing something though.

Thanks,

        tglx