On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Mehmet Kayaalp wrote:
> >> +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 |.
Sorry, that mail got filtered somehow, thanks. Per your discussion, I
guess the most defensive way is:
iint->flags & ~IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS | status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS
in case something comes along and sets IMA_AUDITED on the root iint,
we don't want it to propagate to this ns' status unnecessarily.
Anyway, thanks!
Tycho
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
