[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1409749704.21827.66.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:08:24 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] ima: remove unnecessary code
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 10:19 +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
> If ima_appraise is 0, then action would not mandate to perform
> appraisal and ima_appraise_measurement will never be called.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@...sung.com>
The policy determines whether or not a file should be appraised.
Whether IMA is configured and enabled to appraise files is a different
issue. The test is not done in process_measurement(), but deferred to
here.
Mimi
> ---
> security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> index 225fd94..013ec3f 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> @@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(int func, struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> enum integrity_status status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> int rc = xattr_len, hash_start = 0;
>
> - if (!ima_appraise)
> - return 0;
> if (!inode->i_op->getxattr)
> return INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
>
--
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