linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] ima: mamespace audit status flags

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170801171702.f2szj5huzbt7fdfl@docker>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:17:02 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
To:     Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     ima-devel <linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Yuqiong Sun <sunyuqiong1988@...il.com>,
        David Safford <david.safford@...com>,
        Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@...binghamton.edu>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] ima: mamespace audit status flags

Hi Mehmet,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:50:31PM -0400, Mehmet Kayaalp wrote:
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_ns.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_ns.c
> @@ -301,3 +301,24 @@ struct ns_status *ima_get_ns_status(struct ima_namespace *ns,
>  
>  	return status;
>  }
> +
> +#define IMA_NS_STATUS_ACTIONS	IMA_AUDIT
> +#define IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS	IMA_AUDITED
> +

Seems like these are defined in ima.h above in the patch, and
re-defined here?

> +unsigned long iint_flags(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> +			 struct ns_status *status)
> +{
> +	if (!status)
> +		return iint->flags;
> +
> +	return iint->flags & (status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS);

Just to confirm, is there any situation where:

    iint->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS != status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS

? i.e. can this line just be:

    return status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS;

Tycho

> +}
> +
> +unsigned long set_iint_flags(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> +			     struct ns_status *status, unsigned long flags)
> +{
> +	iint->flags = flags;
> +	if (status)
> +		status->flags = flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS;
> +	return flags;
> +}
> -- 
> 2.9.4
>