diff mbox series

[1/5] xattr: Complete constify ->name member of "struct xattr"

Message ID 20210415100435.18619-2-roberto.sassu@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series evm: Prepare for moving to the LSM infrastructure | expand

Commit Message

Roberto Sassu April 15, 2021, 10:04 a.m. UTC
This patch completes commit 9548906b2bb7 ('xattr: Constify ->name member of
"struct xattr"'). It fixes the documentation of the inode_init_security
hook, by removing the xattr name from the objects that are expected to be
allocated by LSMs (only the value is allocated). Also, it removes the
kfree() of name and setting it to NULL in the reiserfs code.

Fixes: 9548906b2bb7 ('xattr: Constify ->name member of "struct xattr"')
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
---
 fs/reiserfs/xattr_security.c | 2 --
 include/linux/lsm_hooks.h    | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Tetsuo Handa April 15, 2021, 11:20 a.m. UTC | #1
On 2021/04/15 19:04, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> This patch completes commit 9548906b2bb7 ('xattr: Constify ->name member of
> "struct xattr"'). It fixes the documentation of the inode_init_security
> hook, by removing the xattr name from the objects that are expected to be
> allocated by LSMs (only the value is allocated). Also, it removes the
> kfree() of name and setting it to NULL in the reiserfs code.

Good catch, but well, grep does not find any reiserfs_security_free() callers.
Is reiserfs_security_free() a dead code?
Roberto Sassu April 15, 2021, 12:25 p.m. UTC | #2
> From: Tetsuo Handa [mailto:penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 1:20 PM
> On 2021/04/15 19:04, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > This patch completes commit 9548906b2bb7 ('xattr: Constify ->name
> member of
> > "struct xattr"'). It fixes the documentation of the inode_init_security
> > hook, by removing the xattr name from the objects that are expected to
> be
> > allocated by LSMs (only the value is allocated). Also, it removes the
> > kfree() of name and setting it to NULL in the reiserfs code.
> 
> Good catch, but well, grep does not find any reiserfs_security_free() callers.
> Is reiserfs_security_free() a dead code?

Uhm, I also don't see it.

Thanks

Roberto

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
Managing Director: Li Peng, Li Jian, Shi Yanli
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/xattr_security.c b/fs/reiserfs/xattr_security.c
index 8965c8e5e172..bb2a0062e0e5 100644
--- a/fs/reiserfs/xattr_security.c
+++ b/fs/reiserfs/xattr_security.c
@@ -95,9 +95,7 @@  int reiserfs_security_write(struct reiserfs_transaction_handle *th,
 
 void reiserfs_security_free(struct reiserfs_security_handle *sec)
 {
-	kfree(sec->name);
 	kfree(sec->value);
-	sec->name = NULL;
 	sec->value = NULL;
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
index fb7f3193753d..c5498f5174ce 100644
--- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
+++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
@@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ 
  *	This hook is called by the fs code as part of the inode creation
  *	transaction and provides for atomic labeling of the inode, unlike
  *	the post_create/mkdir/... hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function
- *	is expected to allocate the name and value via kmalloc, with the caller
- *	being responsible for calling kfree after using them.
+ *	is expected to allocate the value via kmalloc, with the caller
+ *	being responsible for calling kfree after using it.
  *	If the security module does not use security attributes or does
  *	not wish to put a security attribute on this particular inode,
  *	then it should return -EOPNOTSUPP to skip this processing.