linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] evm: call dump_security_xattr() in all cases to remove code duplication

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:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 07:17:35 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
        paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        Christian Brauner b <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] evm: call dump_security_xattr() in all cases to
 remove code duplication

[Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>]

On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 12:02 +0800, xiujianfeng wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2023/1/30 0:15, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> @@ -254,15 +264,9 @@ static int evm_calc_hmac_or_hash(struct dentry *dentry,
> >>  			if (is_ima)
> >>  				ima_present = true;
> >>  
> >> -			if (req_xattr_value_len < 64)
> >> -				pr_debug("%s: (%zu) [%*phN]\n", req_xattr_name,
> >> -					 req_xattr_value_len,
> >> -					 (int)req_xattr_value_len,
> >> -					 req_xattr_value);
> >> -			else
> >> -				dump_security_xattr(req_xattr_name,
> >> -						    req_xattr_value,
> >> -						    req_xattr_value_len);
> >> +			dump_security_xattr(req_xattr_name,
> >> +					    req_xattr_value,
> >> +					    req_xattr_value_len);
> >>  			continue;
> >>  		}
> >>  		size = vfs_getxattr_alloc(&nop_mnt_idmap, dentry, xattr->name,
> > 
> > Hm, this patch doesn't apply properly.
> 
> I noticed that the patch fails to apply on linux master, however this
> patch is meant for linux-next, would you please maybe have a look?

I wasn't aware of the change.  However, merge conflicts should not be
"fixed", but mentioned immediately after the patch break line ("---") .
FYI, this merge conflict is a result of commit 4609e1f18e19 ("fs: port
->permission() to pass mnt_idmap").

Patches for the linux-integrity branch should be based on the next-
integrity branch.
-- 
thanks,

Mimi