[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1246646279.3844.16.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:37:59 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: add ima_counts_put (updated)
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 13:02 +0900, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp wrote:
> Mimi Zohar:
> > NFSv3 is an interesting example. Permission checking is done once,
> > followed by multiple open/read/close calls. Incrementing the counters in
> > nfsd_permission() once and decrementing the counters in close, multiple
> > times, resulted in imbalance messages. True, the solution in this case
> > was to increment in open and decrement in close, but that was only part
> > of the solution. The other part of the solution, the important part,
> > was to add a call to ima_path_check() to measure the file.
>
> Let me make sure.
> Does "that was only part of the solution" mean IMA does not work for
> NFSD fully? To make IMA work fully, is incrementing before open
> absolutely necessary?
>
> J. R. Okajima
The patch is fine. It adds a call to ima_path_check() in
nfsd_permission(), but delays incrementing the counters to nfsd_open()
and decrementing the counters to nfsd_close() in order for the counters
to be balanced.
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists