Re: [patch, rfc] mm.h, security.h, key.h and preventing namespace poisoning

[Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:07 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I just updated a git tree and started getting errors on a
> > "copy_keys" macro warning.
> > 
> > The code I've been working on uses a ->copy_keys() method for
> > copying the keys in a btree block from one place to another. I've
> > been working on this code for a while
> > (http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00046.html) and keep the
> > tree I'm working in reletively up to date (lags linus by a couple of
> > weeks at most). The update I did this afternoon gave a conflict
> > warning with the macro in include/linux/key.h.
> > 
> > Given that I'm not directly including key.h anywhere in the XFS
> > code, I'm getting the namespace polluted indirectly from some other
> > include that is necessary.
> > 
> > As it turns out, this commit from 13 days ago:
> > 
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=7cd94146cd504016315608e297219f9fb7b1413b
> > 
> > included security.h in mm.h and that is how I'm seeing the namespace
> > poisoning coming from key.h when !CONFIG_KEY.
> > 
> > Including security.h in mm.h means much wider includes for pretty
> > much the entire kernel, and it opens up namespace issues like this
> > that never previously existed.
> > 
> > The patch below (only tested for !CONFIG_KEYS && !CONFIG_SECURITY)
> > moves security.h into the mmap.c and nommu.c files that need it so
> > it doesn't end up with kernel wide scope.
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> The idea with this placement was to keep memory management code with other 
> similar code, rather than pushing it into security.h, where it does not 
> functionally belong.
> 
> Something to not also is that you can't "depend" on security.h not being 
> included all over the place, as LSM does touch a lot of the kernel.  
> Unecessarily including it is bad, of course.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your namespace pollution issue, either.
> 
> In any case, I think the right solution is not to include security.h at 
> all in mm.h, as it is only being done to get a declaration for 
> mmap_min_addr.
> 
> How about this, instead ?
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Acked-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
>  mm.h |    5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 1b7b95c..02fbac7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
>  #include <linux/prio_tree.h>
>  #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
>  #include <linux/mm_types.h>
> -#include <linux/security.h>
>  
>  struct mempolicy;
>  struct anon_vma;
> @@ -34,6 +33,10 @@ extern int sysctl_legacy_va_layout;
>  #define sysctl_legacy_va_layout 0
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> +extern unsigned long mmap_min_addr;
> +#endif
> +
>  #include <asm/page.h>
>  #include <asm/pgtable.h>
>  #include <asm/processor.h>
> 
> 

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