linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/13] integrity/ima: switch to using __kernel

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: <CAHk-=wiVjH4C+PzyHfsR0+GzFUf_2XX5H_tQoHGqp+pMGuec7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:56:59 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] integrity/ima: switch to using __kernel_read

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:46 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> It worries me that you're making these kinds of transformations where
> the comments imply it's a no-op, but the actual code doesn't agree.

Note that it's not that I think the FMODE_READ check is necessarily
_needed_. It's more the discrepancy between the commit message and the
code change that I don't like.

The commit message implies that __kernel_read() has _more_ checks than
the checks done by integrity_kernel_read(). But it looks like they
aren't so much "more" as they are just "different".

                Linus