On 10:43 22/01, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 14:29 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 2:00 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 15:34 -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > > > > On 13:47 18/12, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > If tmpfiles can be made persistent, then newly created tmpfiles need to > > > > > be treated like any other new files in policy. > > > > > > > > > > This patch indicates which newly created tmpfiles are in policy, causing > > > > > the file hash to be calculated on __fput(). > > > > > > > > Discussed in overlayfs, this would be better if we use this on inode > > > > and called from vfs_tmpfile() instead of do_tmpfile(). This will cover > > > > the overlayfs case which uses tmpfiles while performing copy_up(). > > > > The patch is attached. > > > > > > > > Here is the updated patch which works for my cases. > > > > However, it is the the failure case after setting the IMA flags > > > > I am concerned about, though I don't think that should be as harmful. > > > > > > Right. The new IMA hook allocates memory for storing the flags, which > > > needs to be cleaned up on failure. For this reason, the IMA call is > > > deferred until after the transition from locally freeing memory on > > > failure to relying on __fput(). In "do_last", the call to IMA is > > > after "opened"; and in the original version of this patch the call to > > > IMA is after finish_open(). > > > > > > > Not sure I understand the concern. > > The integrity context is associated with the inode and will be freed > > on destroy_inode() no matter which error path is taken. > > Am I missing something? > > No, as long as destroy_inode() is called, it should be fine. > Excellent. I will resend the patch as v3. Thanks! -- Goldwyn
