[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100306112125.GN4958@bicker>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:21:25 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"J.R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [patch] security: ima_file_mmap() don't just return zero
It seems like we should return an error here. That's what the comment
says we should do.
I also removed an out of date comment. It wasn't needed and seemed likely
to get out of date again.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
---
This was found with a static checker and I have only compile tested it.
The callers all seem to use the return code, but please review carefully.
The code has been like this since the module was merged.
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index 294b005..90d5314 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -260,18 +260,17 @@ out:
* policy decision.
*
* Return 0 on success, an error code on failure.
- * (Based on the results of appraise_measurement().)
*/
int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot)
{
- int rc;
+ int rc = 0;
if (!file)
return 0;
if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
rc = process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
MAY_EXEC, FILE_MMAP);
- return 0;
+ return rc;
}
/**
--
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