Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] io_uring: refactor io_uring_allowed()

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 2/7/25 2:42 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2025 Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> Have io_uring_allowed() return an error code directly instead of
>> true/false. This is needed for follow-up work to guard io_uring_setup()
>> with LSM.
>>
>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>> Signed-off-by: Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@linux.microsoft.com>
>> ---
>>  io_uring/io_uring.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> index 7bfbc7c22367..c2d8bd4c2cfc 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> @@ -3789,29 +3789,36 @@ static long io_uring_setup(u32 entries, struct io_uring_params __user *params)
>>  	return io_uring_create(entries, &p, params);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static inline bool io_uring_allowed(void)
>> +static inline int io_uring_allowed(void)
>>  {
>>  	int disabled = READ_ONCE(sysctl_io_uring_disabled);
>>  	kgid_t io_uring_group;
>>  
>>  	if (disabled == 2)
>> -		return false;
>> +		return -EPERM;
>>  
>>  	if (disabled == 0 || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> -		return true;
>> +		goto allowed_lsm;
> 
> I'd probably just 'return 0;' here as the "allowed_lsm" goto label
> doesn't make a lot of sense until patch 2/2, but otherwise this
> looks okay to me.

Agree, get rid of this unnecessary goto.

> Jens, are you okay with this patch?  If yes, can we get an ACK from you?

With that change, yep I'm fine with both of these and you can add my
acked-by to them.

-- 
Jens Axboe