On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 11:39 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 10:57 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 2:50 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Looks good to me too. Casey can you resend the patch with the proper
> > sign-off, commit description, etc.? Roberto, can we convert your
> > comment above into an ACK?
>
> Yes:
>
> Suggested-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Lastly, Mimi and Roberto, would you like me to take this fix up to
> > Linus via the LSM tree, or would you prefer to take it via IMA?
> > Either way is fine with me as long as we get it fixed :)
>
> It is fine if you take in your tree.
>
> May I also ask to double check for the patches in your PRs that we are
> aware and me or Mimi acked our parts?
Yes, of course. I didn't chase the ACKs like I normally do on Casey's
lsm_prop patchset as I was in a bit of a rush and thought it minor
enough for most everything, but you are correct that I should have
sought out you and Mimi's ACK on the IMA related changes.
--
paul-moore.com
