Hi Alban,
On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 06:56 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > @@ -228,9 +229,28 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, char *buf, loff_t size,
> > > IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK | IMA_APPRAISED_SUBMASK |
> > > IMA_ACTION_FLAGS);
> > >
> > > - if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags))
> > > - /* reset all flags if ima_inode_setxattr was called */
> > > + /*
> > > + * Reset the measure, appraise and audit cached flags either if:
> > > + * - ima_inode_setxattr was called, or
> > > + * - based on filesystem feature flag
> > > + * forcing the file to be re-evaluated.
> > > + */
> > > + if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags)) {
> > > iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK;
> > > + } else if (inode->i_sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_IMA_NO_CACHE) {
> > > + if (action & IMA_MEASURE) {
> > > + iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
> > > + iint->flags &=
> > > + ~(IMA_COLLECTED | IMA_MEASURE | IMA_MEASURED);
> > > + }
> > > + if (action & IMA_APPRAISE)
> > > + iint->flags &=
> > > + ~(IMA_COLLECTED | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_APPRAISED |
> > > + IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK | IMA_APPRAISED_SUBMASK);
> > > + if (action & IMA_AUDIT)
> > > + iint->flags &=
> > > + ~(IMA_COLLECTED | IMA_AUDIT | IMA_AUDITED);
> > > + }
> > >
>
> Alban, I don't know what I was thinking, but this can be simplified
> like for the IMA_CHANGE_XATTR case. Except in the IMA_CHANGE_XATTR
> case, "measured_pcrs" was already reset, whereas in this case
> "measured_pcrs" needs to be reset.
Did you get a chance to make the change and test it?
Mimi
