lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs
From
Date
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 15:45 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/14/2021 10:21 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> Would these changes match your suggestion?
>
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 9ac673472781..e80956548243 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
> bool (*uid_op)(kuid_t, kuid_t); /* Handlers for operators */
> bool (*fowner_op)(kuid_t, kuid_t); /* uid_eq(), uid_gt(), uid_lt() */
> int pcr;
> + int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
> struct {
> void *rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]; /* LSM file metadata specific */

If each IMA policy rule may only contain a single LSM specific
LSM_OBJ_{USER | ROLE | TYPE} and LSM_SUBJ_{USER | ROLE | TYPE}, then
there is no need for rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]. Leave it as "*rule".

Otherwise it looks good.

Mimi

> char *args_p; /* audit value */
> int type; /* audit type */
> - int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
> } lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];
> char *fsname;
> struct ima_rule_opt_list *keyrings; /* Measure keys added to these keyrings */

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-23 01:29    [W:0.073 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site