[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1358737823.2406.114.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:10:23 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with Linus' tree
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:12 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c between commit a7f2a366f623 ("ima:
> fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing kernel module syscall") from
> Linus' tree and commit 750943a30714 ("ima: remove enforce checking
> duplication") from the security tree.
>
> I think I fixed it up (see below).
Sorry Stephen, the merged result should look like what's contained in
linux-integrity/next-upstreamed-patches:
int ima_module_check(struct file *file)
{
if (!file) {
if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_MODULES) &&
(ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) {
#ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE
return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */
#endif
}
return 0;
}
return process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
MAY_EXEC, MODULE_CHECK);
}
thanks,
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