[RFC PATCH v4 08/15] landlock: add support network rules
Konstantin Meskhidze
konstantin.meskhidze at huawei.com
Tue Apr 12 08:38:33 UTC 2022
4/11/2022 7:20 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>
> On 11/04/2022 15:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>
>>
>> 4/8/2022 7:30 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>> struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const struct
>>>> landlock_access_mask *access_mask_set)
>>>> {
>>>> struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
>>>>
>>>> /* Informs about useless ruleset. */
>>>> - if (!access_mask_set->fs)
>>>> + if (!access_mask_set->fs && !access_mask_set->net)
>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
>>>> new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
>>>
>>> This is better:
>>>
>>> if (IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
>>> return new_ruleset;
>>> if (access_mask_set->fs)
>>> ...
>>
>> I dont get this condition. Do you mean that we return new_ruleset
>> anyway no matter what the masks's values are? So its possible to have
>> 0 masks values, is't it?
>
> No, the logic is correct but it would be simpler to exit as soon as
> there is a ruleset error, you don't need to duplicate
> "IS_ERR(new_ruleset) &&":
>
> if (IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
> return new_ruleset;
> if (access_mask_set->fs)
> landlock_set_fs_access_mask(new_ruleset, access_mask_set, 0);
> if (access_mask_set->net)
> landlock_set_net_access_mask(new_ruleset, access_mask_set, 0);
> return new_ruleset;
>
Ok. I got it. Thank you.
> .
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list