Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/10] security: fix documentation for the path_chmod hook | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:32:58 -0500 |
| |
On 2/7/19 9:09 AM, Edwin Zimmerman wrote: > On Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:50 AM Al Viro wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:44:54PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote: >>> The path_chmod hook was changed in the commit >>> "switch security_path_chmod() to struct path *" (cdcf116d44e7). >>> The argument @mnt was removed from the hook, @dentry was changed >>> to @path. This patch updates the documentation accordingly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@ispras.ru> >>> --- >>> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h >>> index cb93972257be..5d6428d0027b 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h >>> @@ -304,8 +304,7 @@ >>> * Return 0 if permission is granted. >>> * @path_chmod: >>> * Check for permission to change DAC's permission of a file or directory. >>> - * @dentry contains the dentry structure. >>> - * @mnt contains the vfsmnt structure. >>> + * @path contains the path structure. >> >> May I politely inquire about the value of these comments? How much information >> is provided by refering to an argument as "the dentry structure" or "the path >> structure", especially when there's nothing immediately above that would introduce >> either. "Type of 'dentry' argument is somehow related to struct dentry, >> try and guess what the value might be - we don't care, we just need every >> argument commented"? >> >> Who needs that crap in the first place? > > The comments fill a valuable place to folks like me who are new to the linux security modules. > In my spare time, I'm writing a new LSM specifically geared for parental controls uses, and the > comments in lsm_hooks.h have helped me out more than once. Perhaps the comments could > be inproved by changing them to something like this: > "@[arg] contains the [type] structure, defined in linux/[?].h"
I don't think so. The point is not what type of structure but what object is being passed and why is it relevant to the hook, e.g.
+ @path contains the path structure for the file whose permissions are being modified
or similar.
| |