Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <acae432697e854748d9a44c732ec8cab807d9d46.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 04/10] KEYS: Move KEY_LOOKUP_ to include/linux/key.h
From:   Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
        haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, mykolal@fb.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, dhowells@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com, shuah@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        deso@posteo.net, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 09:14:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <YwhTiGOhzvv+CYYq@kernel.org>
References: <20220818152929.402605-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
         <20220818152929.402605-5-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
         <YwhTiGOhzvv+CYYq@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 08:42 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 05:29:23PM +0200, 
> roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > 
> > In preparation for the patch that introduces the
> > bpf_lookup_user_key() eBPF
> > kfunc, move KEY_LOOKUP_ definitions to include/linux/key.h, to be
> > able to
> > validate the kfunc parameters.
> > 
> > Also, introduce key_lookup_flags_check() directly in
> > include/linux/key.h,
> > to reduce the risk that the check is not in sync with currently
> > defined
> > flags.
> 
> Missing the description what the heck this function even is.
> 
> Please, explain that.

Hi Jarkko

sorry, forgot to update the commit description. Will do it.

> Also, the short subject is misleading because this *just*
> does not move flags.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/key.h      | 11 +++++++++++
> >  security/keys/internal.h |  2 --
> >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/key.h b/include/linux/key.h
> > index 7febc4881363..b5bbae77a9e7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/key.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/key.h
> > @@ -88,6 +88,17 @@ enum key_need_perm {
> >  	KEY_DEFER_PERM_CHECK,	/* Special: permission check is
> > deferred */
> >  };
> >  
> > +#define KEY_LOOKUP_CREATE	0x01
> > +#define KEY_LOOKUP_PARTIAL	0x02
> > +
> 
> /*
>  * Explain what the heck this function is.
>  */
> > +static inline int key_lookup_flags_check(u64 flags)
> > +{
> > +	if (flags & ~(KEY_LOOKUP_CREATE | KEY_LOOKUP_PARTIAL))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> This is essentially a boolean function, right?
> 
> I.e. the implementation can be just:
> 
> !!(flags & ~(KEY_LOOKUP_CREATE | KEY_LOOKUP_PARTIAL))

Absolutely fine with that, if you prefer.

> Not even sure if this is needed in the first place, or
> would it be better just to open code it. How many call
> sites does it have anyway?
> 

Daniel preferred to have this check here.

Thanks

Roberto