linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 03/26] ima: Define ima_namespace struct and start moving variables into it

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, 24 May 2022 12:18:28 -0400
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
        mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com, lsturman@...hat.com,
        puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        jpenumak@...hat.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 03/26] ima: Define ima_namespace struct and start
 moving variables into it



On 5/20/22 22:33, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

>>    * they make a queue.  The policy may be updated multiple times and this is the
>> @@ -985,16 +988,17 @@ int ima_check_policy(void)
>>    * Policy rules are never deleted so ima_policy_flag gets zeroed only once when
>>    * we switch from the default policy to user defined.
>>    */
>> -void ima_update_policy(void)
>> +void ima_update_policy(struct ima_namespace *ns)
>>   {
>> -	struct list_head *policy = &ima_policy_rules;
>> +	struct list_head *policy = &ns->ima_policy_rules;
>>   
>> -	list_splice_tail_init_rcu(&ima_temp_rules, policy, synchronize_rcu);
>> +	list_splice_tail_init_rcu(&ns->ima_temp_rules, policy,
>> +				  synchronize_rcu);
>>   
>> -	if (ima_rules != (struct list_head __rcu *)policy) {
>> -		ima_policy_flag = 0;
>> +	if (ns->ima_rules != (struct list_head __rcu *)policy) {
>> +		ns->ima_policy_flag = 0;
>>   
>> -		rcu_assign_pointer(ima_rules, policy);
>> +		rcu_assign_pointer(ns->ima_rules, policy);
>>   		/*
>>   		 * IMA architecture specific policy rules are specified
>>   		 * as strings and converted to an array of ima_entry_rules
>> @@ -1003,10 +1007,10 @@ void ima_update_policy(void)
>>   		 */
>>   		kfree(arch_policy_entry);
>>   	}
>> -	ima_update_policy_flags();
>> +	ima_update_policy_flags(ns);
>>   
>>   	/* Custom IMA policy has been loaded */
>> -	ima_process_queued_keys();
>> +	ima_process_queued_keys(ns);
>>   }
>>   

So this is a caller that may enter that function with ns != init_ima_ns 
and in that case that function should do nothing. So, also the WARN_ON() 
is not appropriate then.

    Stefan