Messages in this thread | | | From | Ingo Oeser <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scm: fold __scm_send() into scm_send() | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:44:58 +0100 |
| |
Hi Chris,
Andrew Morton wrote: > Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@rameria.de> wrote: > > > > -int scm_send(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, struct scm_cookie *scm) > > -{ > > - struct task_struct *p = current; > > - scm->creds = (struct ucred) { > > - .uid = p->uid, > > - .gid = p->gid, > > - .pid = p->tgid > > - }; > > - scm->fp = NULL; > > - scm->sid = security_sk_sid(sock->sk, NULL, 0); > > - scm->seq = 0; > > - if (msg->msg_controllen <= 0) > > - return 0; > > - return __scm_send(sock, msg, scm); > > -} > > It's worth noting that scm_send() will call security_sk_sid() even if > (msg->msg_controllen <= 0).
Chris, do you know if this is needed in this case?
> If that test is likely to be true with any frequency then perhaps we can > optimise things...
That test seems to be the original intention for the splitup.
The security modules just put their hooks here. Maybe we can fold these hooks into __scm_send() and have the old splitup again to get the old code paths back.
It seems that the credential copy in af_unix.c
memcpy(UNIXCREDS(skb), &siocb->scm->creds, sizeof(struct ucred)); if (siocb->scm->fp) unix_attach_fds(siocb->scm, skb);
doesn't depend on the "msg_controllen <= 0" test. If we can introduce this dependency there, we can put credential setup into __scm_send().
I would suggest we fold these two lines into a function and decide this later.
Chris, would this suffice?
Regards
Ingo Oeser
BTW: ioe-lkml@rameria.de is simply netdev@axxeo.de at work :-) - 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/
| |