On 10/24/19 12:48 PM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 10/23/2019 8:47 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:
+/*
+ * ima_check_blacklist - determine if the binary is blacklisted.
+ *
+ * Add the hash of the blacklisted binary to the measurement list,
based
+ * on policy.
+ *
+ * Returns -EPERM if the hash is blacklisted.
+ */
+int ima_check_blacklist(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
+ const struct modsig *modsig, int pcr)
+{
+ enum hash_algo hash_algo;
+ const u8 *digest = NULL;
+ u32 digestsize = 0;
+ int rc = 0;
+
+ if (!(iint->flags & IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST))
+ return 0;
+
+ if (iint->flags & IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED && modsig) {
+ ima_get_modsig_digest(modsig, &hash_algo, &digest,
&digestsize);
+
+ rc = is_binary_blacklisted(digest, digestsize);
+ if ((rc == -EPERM) && (iint->flags & IMA_MEASURE))
+ process_buffer_measurement(digest, digestsize,
+ "blacklisted-hash", NONE,
+ pcr);
+ }
The enum value "NONE" is being passed to process_buffer_measurement to
indicate that the check for required action based on ima policy is
already done by ima_check_blacklist. Not sure, but this can cause
confusion in the future when someone updates process_buffer_measurement.
As I explained in the response to other patch, the purpose is to
indicate that it is an auxiliary measurement record. By passing func as
NONE, it implies there is no explicit policy to be queried for the
template as it is an additional record for an existing policy and is to
use ima-buf template.
What type of confusion do you mean ?
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
