On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 18:24 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Commit 196f518128d2e ("IMA: explicit IMA i_flag to remove global lock on
> inode_delete") introduced the new S_IMA inode flag to determine whether or
> not an inode was processed by IMA. In that way, it was not necessary to
> take the global lock on inode delete.
>
> Since commit 4de2f084fbff ("ima: Make it independent from 'integrity'
> LSM"), the pointer of the inode integrity metadata managed by IMA has been
> moved to the inode security blob, from the rb-tree. The pointer is not NULL
> only if the inode has been processed by IMA, i.e. ima_inode_get() has been
> called for that inode.
>
> Thus, since the IS_IMA() check can be now implemented by trivially testing
> whether or not the pointer of inode integrity metadata is NULL, remove the
> S_IMA definition in include/linux/fs.h and also the IS_IMA() macro.
>
> Remove also the IS_IMA() invocation in ima_rdwr_violation_check(), since
> whether the inode was processed by IMA will be anyway detected by a
> subsequent call to ima_iint_find(). It does not have an additional overhead
> since the decision can be made in constant time, as opposed to logarithm
> when the inode integrity metadata was stored in the rb-tree.
>
> Suggested-by: Shu Han <ebpqwerty472123@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewd-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
