On Sat, 2020-12-12 at 10:02 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote: > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > index 68956e884403..e76ef4bfd0f4 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > @@ -786,13 +786,13 @@ int ima_post_load_data(char *buf, loff_t size, > * @eventname: event name to be used for the buffer entry. > * @func: IMA hook > * @pcr: pcr to extend the measurement > - * @keyring: keyring name to determine the action to be performed > + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL. This can be simplified to "func specific data, may be NULL". Please update in all places. > * > * Based on policy, the buffer is measured into the ima log. > */ > void process_buffer_measurement(struct inode *inode, const void *buf, int size, > const char *eventname, enum ima_hooks func, > - int pcr, const char *keyring) > + int pcr, const char *func_data) > { > int ret = 0; > const char *audit_cause = "ENOMEM"; > @@ -831,7 +831,7 @@ void process_buffer_measurement(struct inode *inode, const void *buf, int size, > if (func) { > security_task_getsecid(current, &secid); > action = ima_get_action(inode, current_cred(), secid, 0, func, > - &pcr, &template, keyring); > + &pcr, &template, func_data); > if (!(action & IMA_MEASURE)) > return; > } > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > index 823a0c1379cb..a09d1a41a290 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > @@ -453,30 +453,41 @@ int ima_lsm_policy_change(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long event, > } > > /** > - * ima_match_keyring - determine whether the keyring matches the measure rule > - * @rule: a pointer to a rule > - * @keyring: name of the keyring to match against the measure rule > + * ima_match_rule_data - determine whether the given func_data matches > + * the measure rule data After the function_name is a brief description of the function, which should not span multiple lines. Refer to Documentation/doc- guide/kernel-doc.rst for details. Please trim the function description to: determine whether func_data matches the policy rule > + * @rule: IMA policy rule This patch should be limited to renaming "keyring" to "func_data". It shouldn't make other changes, even simple ones like this. > + * @func_data: data to match against the measure rule data > * @cred: a pointer to a credentials structure for user validation > * > - * Returns true if keyring matches one in the rule, false otherwise. > + * Returns true if func_data matches one in the rule, false otherwise. > */ > -static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, > - const char *keyring, const struct cred *cred) > +static bool ima_match_rule_data(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, > + const char *func_data, > + const struct cred *cred) > { > + const struct ima_rule_opt_list *opt_list = NULL; > bool matched = false; > size_t i; > > if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && !rule->uid_op(cred->uid, rule->uid)) > return false; > > - if (!rule->keyrings) > - return true; > + switch (rule->func) { > + case KEY_CHECK: > + if (!rule->keyrings) > + return true; > + > + opt_list = rule->keyrings; > + break; > + default: > + return false; > + } > > - if (!keyring) > + if (!func_data) > return false; > > - for (i = 0; i < rule->keyrings->count; i++) { > - if (!strcmp(rule->keyrings->items[i], keyring)) { > + for (i = 0; i < opt_list->count; i++) { > + if (!strcmp(opt_list->items[i], func_data)) { > matched = true; > break; > } > @@ -493,20 +504,20 @@ static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, > * @secid: the secid of the task to be validated > * @func: LIM hook identifier > * @mask: requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC) > - * @keyring: keyring name to check in policy for KEY_CHECK func > + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL. Update as previously suggested. > * > * Returns true on rule match, false on failure. > */ > static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode, > const struct cred *cred, u32 secid, > enum ima_hooks func, int mask, > - const char *keyring) > + const char *func_data) > { > int i; > > if (func == KEY_CHECK) { > return (rule->flags & IMA_FUNC) && (rule->func == func) && > - ima_match_keyring(rule, keyring, cred); > + ima_match_rule_data(rule, func_data, cred); > } > if ((rule->flags & IMA_FUNC) && > (rule->func != func && func != POST_SETATTR)) > @@ -610,8 +621,7 @@ static int get_subaction(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, enum ima_hooks func) > * @mask: requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC) > * @pcr: set the pcr to extend > * @template_desc: the template that should be used for this rule > - * @keyring: the keyring name, if given, to be used to check in the policy. > - * keyring can be NULL if func is anything other than KEY_CHECK. > + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL. And again here. thanks, Mimi -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel