Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 05/12] Introduce a stacked security driver impl for QEMU

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:15:02PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > * qemu/qemu_conf.h: Add securityPrimaryDriver and > securitySecondaryDriver fields to 'struct qemud_driver' > * Makefile.am: Add new files > * qemu/qemu_security_stacked.c, qemu/qemu_security_stacked.h: A > simple stacked security driver > --- > src/Makefile.am | 4 +- > src/qemu/qemu_conf.h | 2 + > src/qemu/qemu_security_stacked.c | 353 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > src/qemu/qemu_security_stacked.h | 22 +++ > 4 files changed, 380 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 src/qemu/qemu_security_stacked.c > create mode 100644 src/qemu/qemu_security_stacked.h [...] > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_security_stacked.c > @@ -0,0 +1,353 @@ > +/* > + * Copyright (C) 2010 Red Hat, Inc. > + * > + * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public > + * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either > + * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. > + * > + * QEMU stacked security driver > + */ > + > +#include <config.h> > +#include <selinux/selinux.h> > +#include <selinux/context.h> Why do we need to include SELinux headers, the module content seems to be agnostic on the underlying framework (SELinux/Apparmor)

> +static int > +qemuSecurityStackedGenLabel(virConnectPtr conn, > + virDomainObjPtr vm) > +{ > + int rc = 0; > + > + if (driver->securitySecondaryDriver && > + driver->securitySecondaryDriver->domainGenSecurityLabel && > + driver->securitySecondaryDriver->domainGenSecurityLabel(conn, vm) < 0) > + rc = -1; > + > + if (driver->securityPrimaryDriver && > + driver->securityPrimaryDriver->domainGenSecurityLabel && > + driver->securityPrimaryDriver->domainGenSecurityLabel(conn, vm) < 0) > + rc = -1; > + > + return rc; > +} Okay, so the general pattern is that any stacked driver call will fail if any of the subdriver entry point fail, a missing entry point not being a failure. I'm still surprized that if both entry point are missing we return 0 i.e. success...