Re: [PATCH v12 04/10] KEYS: Move KEY_LOOKUP_ to include/linux/key.h

[KP Singh]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 5:57 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:14:09AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 08:42 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 05:29:23PM +0200,
> > > roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  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.
>
> It can be either, it more depends on if a new function
> is needed in the first place.
>
> E.g. if you are worried about maintaining you could just
> as well define a constant containing the mask, right?

+1 A mask is better.

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> How many call sites?
>
> BR, Jarkko