On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 11:57:05PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:

On 8/21/24 00:22, Shen Lichuan wrote:

quoted

The code was unpacking the 'allow' parameter twice.
This change removes the duplicate part.

Signed-off-by: Shen Lichuan <redacted>

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? :)

quoted

---
  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) &&