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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:25:31 -0400
From:   Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.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


> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes, it should be in the ima.h only.

>> +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;
> 

As Guilherme had pointed out, the first & should be |.

Mehmet