> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes, it should be in the ima.h only.
>> +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;
>
As Guilherme had pointed out, the first & should be |.
Mehmet
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
