[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1265644058.4038.79.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:47:38 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: wzt wzt <wzt.wzt@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c: Fix return value
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 15:00 +0800, wzt wzt wrote:
> Hi:
> In security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c ima_file_mmap() called by
> security_file_mmap(), it depend on the return value of
> ima_file_mmap(), not always return 0. see also in ima_bprm_check().
>
>
> Signed-off-by: wzt <zhitong.wangzt@...baba-inc.com>
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index 294b005..705a991 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot)
> if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
> rc = process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
> MAY_EXEC, FILE_MMAP);
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int ima_bprm_check(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>
> rc = process_measurement(bprm->file, bprm->filename,
> MAY_EXEC, BPRM_CHECK);
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
nack. Sorry, we're not at the point where we can enforce integrity. The
return code will eventually be based on measurement appraisal.
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