Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] NFSD: Remove ima_file_check call

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 04:11:06PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:10 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:28:54AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> The NFS server needs to allow NFS clients to perform their own
>>>> attestation and measurement.
>>> 
>>> Can we really remove this call?
>> 
>> Why wouldn't we be able to?
> 
> I don't know the first thing about IMA, but surely it's there for some
> reason--

It was originally added because the number of opens and closes of @file
were counted, and not having that call was triggering a warning. Since
commit 8eb988c70e770 ("fix ima breakage") the counters are maintained
separately.


> is it really OK just to skip this on opens by nfsd?

That's why I split this out into a separate patch. I'm hoping to get
some commentary from the linux-integrity community.


> --b.
> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/nfsd/vfs.c |    6 ------
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>> index 3c00072..524c6e5 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>> @@ -802,12 +802,6 @@ static int nfsd_open_break_lease(struct inode *inode, int access)
>>>> 		goto out_nfserr;
>>>> 	}
>>>> 
>>>> -	host_err = ima_file_check(file, may_flags);
>>>> -	if (host_err) {
>>>> -		fput(file);
>>>> -		goto out_nfserr;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>>>> 	if (may_flags & NFSD_MAY_64BIT_COOKIE)
>>>> 		file->f_mode |= FMODE_64BITHASH;
>>>> 	else
>> 
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>> 
>> 

--
Chuck Lever







[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux