On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 17:21 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:56 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 12:41 -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > + for (xattrname = evm_config_default_xattrnames; *xattrname !=
> NULL;
> > > + xattrname++) {
> > > + tmp = kmalloc(sizeof(struct xattr_list), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!tmp)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > + tmp->name = kstrdup(*xattrname, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!tmp->name) {
> > > + kfree(tmp);
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > + }
> > > + list_add_tail(&tmp->list, &evm_config_xattrnames);
>
> > If evm_config_xattrnames[] is defined as struct xattr_list, there's no
> > need for allocating memory for the xattr_list and name. Something
> > like in ima_init_policy() would work.
>
> Hm. Do you mean evm_config_default_xattrnames?
Yes, or:
for (i = 0; i < secure_boot_entries; i++)
list_add_tail(&secure_boot_rules[i].list,
&ima_default_rules);
>
> > Could we break this patch up to simplify review? The first patch
> > would create and use the xattrname list. The subsequent patch(es)
> > would add the new functionality.
>
> Sure, I'll do that.
thanks!
Mimi
