On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 10:23 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 11/25/2024 3:38 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that the `prop` parameter of `ima_match_rules()` is
> > currently unused (due to shadowing).
> > Is that by design or a mishap of the recent rework?
> >
> > Related commits:
> >
> > 37f670a ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_current_getsecid")
> > 870b7fd ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_audit_rule_match")
> > 07f9d2c ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_inode_getsecid")
>
> The shadowing was inadvertent. The use of lsm_prop data is
> corrected by this patch.
Thanks Casey. Yes, this is what I had in mind.
Roberto
> ---
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index dbfd554b4624..21a8e54c383f 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
> return false;
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
> int rc = 0;
> - struct lsm_prop prop = { };
> + struct lsm_prop inode_prop = { };
>
> if (!lsm_rule->lsm[i].rule) {
> if (!lsm_rule->lsm[i].args_p)
> @@ -649,15 +649,16 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
> case LSM_OBJ_USER:
> case LSM_OBJ_ROLE:
> case LSM_OBJ_TYPE:
> - security_inode_getlsmprop(inode, &prop);
> - rc = ima_filter_rule_match(&prop, lsm_rule->lsm[i].type,
> + security_inode_getlsmprop(inode, &inode_prop);
> + rc = ima_filter_rule_match(&inode_prop,
> + lsm_rule->lsm[i].type,
> Audit_equal,
> lsm_rule->lsm[i].rule);
> break;
> case LSM_SUBJ_USER:
> case LSM_SUBJ_ROLE:
> case LSM_SUBJ_TYPE:
> - rc = ima_filter_rule_match(&prop, lsm_rule->lsm[i].type,
> + rc = ima_filter_rule_match(prop, lsm_rule->lsm[i].type,
> Audit_equal,
> lsm_rule->lsm[i].rule);
> break;
>
