Re: [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface

From: Paul Moore
Date: Thu Oct 30 2008 - 12:46:40 EST


On Thursday 30 October 2008 11:29:40 am Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx):
> > Add a new capable interface that will be used by systems that use
> > audit to make an A or B type decision instead of a security
> > decision. Currently this is the case at least for filesystems when
> > deciding if a process can use the reserved 'root' blocks and for
> > the case of things like the oom algorithm determining if processes
> > are root processes and should be less likely to be killed. These
> > types of security system requests should not be audited or logged
> > since they are not really security decisions. It would be possible
> > to solve this problem like the vm_enough_memory security check did
> > by creating a new LSM interface and moving all of the policy into
> > that interface but proves the needlessly bloat the LSM and provide
> > complex indirection.
> >
> > This merely allows those decisions to be made where they belong and
> > to not flood logs or printk with denials for thing that are not
> > security decisions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Please introduce some meaningful defines instead of passing 0 and 1.
> I.e.
>
> #define CAP_NOAUDIT 0
> #define CAP_AUDIT 1
>
> Otherwise, looks fine.

As a general rule aren't boolean arguments like this frowned upon, with
variations on the function preferred, i.e. something like below?

int cap_capable(struct task_struct *tsk, int cap);
int cap_capable_audit(struct task_struct *tsk, int cap);

--
paul moore
linux @ hp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/