Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] security: add fault injection capability | From | Tetsuo Handa <> | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:43:06 +0900 |
| |
On 2020/10/30 3:35, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_LSM_HOOKS > + > +static struct { > + struct fault_attr attr; > + int retval; > +} fail_lsm_hooks = { > + .attr = FAULT_ATTR_INITIALIZER, > + .retval = -EACCES > +}; > + > +static int __init setup_fail_lsm_hooks(char *str) > +{ > + return setup_fault_attr(&fail_lsm_hooks.attr, str); > +} > +__setup("fail_lsm_hooks=", setup_fail_lsm_hooks); > + > +static int lsm_hooks_inject_fail(void) > +{ > + return should_fail(&fail_lsm_hooks.attr, 1) ? fail_lsm_hooks.retval : 0; > +} > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS > + > +static int __init fail_lsm_hooks_debugfs(void) > +{ > + umode_t mode = S_IFREG | 0600; > + struct dentry *dir; > + > + dir = fault_create_debugfs_attr("fail_lsm_hooks", NULL, > + &fail_lsm_hooks.attr); > + debugfs_create_u32("retval", mode, dir, &fail_lsm_hooks.retval);
Since production kernels will use CONFIG_FAIL_LSM_HOOKS=n, we won't need to worry about userspace ABI.
Reviewed-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
By the way, fail_lsm_hooks.retval is "signed int" but debugfs_create_u32() handles "unsigned int". Do we want to allow lsm_hooks_inject_fail() to inject arbitrary !IS_ERR_VALUE() values?
> + return 0; > +}
| |