[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxSgVX=d5RvL0kSTm5KQR-AJ=+t_+jXv9J+J3f-C4MOfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:21:46 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Security subsystem updates for 3.9
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Almost, and enforcing file integrity is enabled. 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;
Ugh. The placement of that #ifndef is just horrible, please don't do
that. Just add it around the whole if-statement rather than around
just the return. Not because the compiler can't optimize away the
tests, but because it's much more obvious to a *human* what the ifndef
actually does.
Anyway, I don't have the IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE bit checking, it wasn't
obvious from the conflict, so somebody will need to add that.
Linus
--
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