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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221115175652.3836811-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
 <20221115175652.3836811-2-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <CAHC9VhQjnwbFgAoFgTaLQP7YnNDNyP1i0i8H++HZWj930pW=-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <18e375adfe53f8ce5fb38a6a146ad06eaec71a5e.camel@huaweicloud.com> <CACYkzJ43UZARCkWp6wOQuuEDpOnf33JwAJ=CeZVuW0hffQrmeQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACYkzJ43UZARCkWp6wOQuuEDpOnf33JwAJ=CeZVuW0hffQrmeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:27:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTR1_Yr=jsCVMAMG3qcOP_GT0KbyzHVKD+Ok0NJQmBkdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] lsm: Clarify documentation of vm_enough_memory hook
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
        song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        revest@chromium.org, jackmanb@chromium.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:18 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:06 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 21:11 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:57 PM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > >
> > > > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h reports the result of the LSM infrastructure to
> > > > the callers, not what LSMs should return to the LSM infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > Clarify that and add that returning 1 from the LSMs means calling
> > > > __vm_enough_memory() with cap_sys_admin set, 0 without.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > > index 4ec80b96c22e..f40b82ca91e7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > > @@ -1411,7 +1411,9 @@
> > > >   *     Check permissions for allocating a new virtual mapping.
> > > >   *     @mm contains the mm struct it is being added to.
> > > >   *     @pages contains the number of pages.
> > > > - *     Return 0 if permission is granted.
> > > > + *     Return 0 if permission is granted by LSMs to the caller. LSMs should
> > > > + *     return 1 if __vm_enough_memory() should be called with
> > > > + *     cap_sys_admin set, 0 if not.
> > >
> > > I think this is a nice addition, but according to the code, any value
> > > greater than zero will trigger the caller-should-have-CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> > > behavior, not just 1.  I suggest updating the comment.
> >
> > Ok, yes. Thanks.
>
> Also, this is an unrelated patch and you can probably send it
> independently, especially
> since the other changes will now land mostly via BPF.

Yes, the doc/comment changes really have nothing to do with the other
stuff we are discussing in this patchset.

-- 
paul-moore.com