On Tue, 2021-05-04 at 13:16 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 4:35 PM > > On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 14:15 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > > > > if (evm_status != INTEGRITY_PASS) > > > > > > integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_METADATA, > > > > > d_backing_inode(dentry), > > > > > > dentry->d_name.name, > > > > > "appraise_metadata", > > > > > > @@ -515,7 +535,8 @@ int evm_inode_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, > > > > struct > > > > > iattr *attr) > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > evm_status = evm_verify_current_integrity(dentry); > > > > > > if ((evm_status == INTEGRITY_PASS) || > > > > > > - (evm_status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS)) > > > > > > + (evm_status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS) || > > > > > > + (evm_ignore_error_safe(evm_status))) > > > > > > > > > > It would also remove the INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS test duplication here. > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > Actually, it does not seem a duplication. Currently, INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS > > > is ignored also when the HMAC key is loaded. > > > > The existing INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS exemption is more general and includes > > the new case of when EVM HMAC is disabled. The additional exemption is > > only needed for INTEGRITY_NOLABEL, when EVM HMAC is disabled. > > Unfortunately, evm_ignore_error_safe() is called by both evm_protect_xattr() > and evm_inode_setattr(). The former requires an exemption also for > INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS. > > I would keep the function as it is. In the worst case, when the status is > INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS in evm_inode_setattr(), the function will not > be called. Right, which is another reason for replacing evm_ignore_eror_safe() with (is_)evm_hmac_disabled() and inlining the error tests. thanks, Mimi
