Hi Mehmet,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:50:31PM -0400, Mehmet Kayaalp wrote:
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_ns.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_ns.c
> @@ -301,3 +301,24 @@ struct ns_status *ima_get_ns_status(struct ima_namespace *ns,
>
> return status;
> }
> +
> +#define IMA_NS_STATUS_ACTIONS IMA_AUDIT
> +#define IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS IMA_AUDITED
> +
Seems like these are defined in ima.h above in the patch, and
re-defined here?
> +unsigned long iint_flags(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> + struct ns_status *status)
> +{
> + if (!status)
> + return iint->flags;
> +
> + return iint->flags & (status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS);
Just to confirm, is there any situation where:
iint->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS != status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS
? i.e. can this line just be:
return status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS;
Tycho
> +}
> +
> +unsigned long set_iint_flags(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> + struct ns_status *status, unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + iint->flags = flags;
> + if (status)
> + status->flags = flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS;
> + return flags;
> +}
> --
> 2.9.4
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
