On Thu, 2023-12-14 at 18:08 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Make the 'ima' LSM independent from the 'integrity' LSM by introducing IMA > own integrity metadata (ima_iint_cache structure, with IMA-specific fields > from the integrity_iint_cache structure), and by managing it directly from > the 'ima' LSM. > > Move the remaining IMA-specific flags to security/integrity/ima/ima.h, > since they are now unnecessary in the common integrity layer. > > Replace integrity_iint_cache with ima_iint_cache in various places > of the IMA code. > > Then, reserve space in the security blob for the entire ima_iint_cache > structure, so that it is available for all inodes having the security blob > allocated (those for which security_inode_alloc() was called). Adjust the > IMA code accordingly, call ima_iint_inode() to retrieve the ima_iint_cache > structure. Keep the non-NULL checks since there can be inodes without > security blob. Previously the 'iint' memory was only allocated for regular files in policy and were tagged S_IMA. This patch totally changes when and how memory is being allocated. Does it make sense to allocate memory at security_inode_alloc()? Is this change really necessary for making IMA a full fledged LSM? Mimi > > Don't include the inode pointer as field in the ima_iint_cache structure, > since the association with the inode is clear. Since the inode field is > missing in ima_iint_cache, pass the extra inode parameter to > ima_get_verity_digest(). > > Finally, register ima_inode_alloc_security/ima_inode_free_security() to > initialize/deinitialize the new ima_iint_cache structure (before this task > was done by iint_init_always() and iint_free()). Also, duplicate > iint_lockdep_annotate() for the ima_iint_cache structure, and name it > ima_iint_lockdep_annotate(). > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
