On 9/10/24 13:57, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 11:57:05PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
On 8/21/24 00:22, Shen Lichuan wrote:
The code was unpacking the 'allow' parameter twice.
This change removes the duplicate part.
Signed-off-by: Shen Lichuan <shenlich...@vivo.com>
NAK, this would break the unpack. The first entry is actually a reserved
value and is just being thrown away atm. Instead of double unpacking to
perms->allow we could unpack it to a temp variable that just gets discarded
Heh, I recon this should probably be documented in a comment? :)
yes, definitely.
---
security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
index 5a570235427d..4ec1e1251012 100644
--- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
+++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
@@ -649,7 +649,6 @@ static bool unpack_perm(struct aa_ext *e, u32 version,
struct aa_perms *perm)
return false;
return aa_unpack_u32(e, &perm->allow, NULL) &&
- aa_unpack_u32(e, &perm->allow, NULL) &&
aa_unpack_u32(e, &perm->deny, NULL) &&
aa_unpack_u32(e, &perm->subtree, NULL) &&
aa_unpack_u32(e, &perm->cond, NULL) &&
