> On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 04:11:06PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:10 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:28:54AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> The NFS server needs to allow NFS clients to perform their own
>>>> attestation and measurement.
>>>
>>> Can we really remove this call?
>>
>> Why wouldn't we be able to?
>
> I don't know the first thing about IMA, but surely it's there for some
> reason--
It was originally added because the number of opens and closes of @file
were counted, and not having that call was triggering a warning. Since
commit 8eb988c70e770 ("fix ima breakage") the counters are maintained
separately.
> is it really OK just to skip this on opens by nfsd?
That's why I split this out into a separate patch. I'm hoping to get
some commentary from the linux-integrity community.
> --b.
>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 6 ------
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>> index 3c00072..524c6e5 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>> @@ -802,12 +802,6 @@ static int nfsd_open_break_lease(struct inode *inode, int access)
>>>> goto out_nfserr;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - host_err = ima_file_check(file, may_flags);
>>>> - if (host_err) {
>>>> - fput(file);
>>>> - goto out_nfserr;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>> if (may_flags & NFSD_MAY_64BIT_COOKIE)
>>>> file->f_mode |= FMODE_64BITHASH;
>>>> else
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>>
>>
--
Chuck Lever
