* [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix
@ 2009-05-05 17:12 Mimi Zohar
2009-05-05 23:14 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2009-05-05 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: James Morris, david safford
An audit subsystem change replaced AUDIT_EQUAL with Audit_equal.
Update calls to security_filter_rule_init()/match() to reflect
the change.
Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
===================================================================
--- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && rule->uid != tsk->cred->uid)
return false;
for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
- int rc;
+ int rc = 0;
u32 osid, sid;
if (!rule->lsm[i].rule)
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
security_inode_getsecid(inode, &osid);
rc = security_filter_rule_match(osid,
rule->lsm[i].type,
- AUDIT_EQUAL,
+ Audit_equal,
rule->lsm[i].rule,
NULL);
break;
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
security_task_getsecid(tsk, &sid);
rc = security_filter_rule_match(sid,
rule->lsm[i].type,
- AUDIT_EQUAL,
+ Audit_equal,
rule->lsm[i].rule,
NULL);
default:
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_
entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type = audit_type;
result = security_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type,
- AUDIT_EQUAL, args,
+ Audit_equal, args,
&entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule);
return result;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix
2009-05-05 17:12 [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix Mimi Zohar
@ 2009-05-05 23:14 ` James Morris
2009-05-05 23:25 ` James Morris
2009-05-05 23:38 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2009-05-05 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar; +Cc: linux-kernel, david safford
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> An audit subsystem change replaced AUDIT_EQUAL with Audit_equal.
> Update calls to security_filter_rule_init()/match() to reflect
> the change.
>
> Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> ===================================================================
> --- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
> if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && rule->uid != tsk->cred->uid)
> return false;
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
> - int rc;
> + int rc = 0;
Why did you change this?
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix
2009-05-05 23:14 ` James Morris
@ 2009-05-05 23:25 ` James Morris
2009-05-05 23:46 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-05-05 23:38 ` Mimi Zohar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2009-05-05 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar; +Cc: linux-kernel, david safford
On Wed, 6 May 2009, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> > An audit subsystem change replaced AUDIT_EQUAL with Audit_equal.
> > Update calls to security_filter_rule_init()/match() to reflect
> > the change.
> >
> > Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > +++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
> > if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && rule->uid != tsk->cred->uid)
> > return false;
> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
> > - int rc;
> > + int rc = 0;
>
Also, please add a Signed-off-by.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix
2009-05-05 23:14 ` James Morris
2009-05-05 23:25 ` James Morris
@ 2009-05-05 23:38 ` Mimi Zohar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2009-05-05 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris; +Cc: linux-kernel, david safford
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:14 +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> > An audit subsystem change replaced AUDIT_EQUAL with Audit_equal.
> > Update calls to security_filter_rule_init()/match() to reflect
> > the change.
> >
> > Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > +++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
> > if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && rule->uid != tsk->cred->uid)
> > return false;
> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
> > - int rc;
> > + int rc = 0;
>
> Why did you change this?
Based on a reported compiler warning error.
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix
2009-05-05 23:25 ` James Morris
@ 2009-05-05 23:46 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2009-05-05 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris; +Cc: linux-kernel, david safford
An audit subsystem change replaced AUDIT_EQUAL with Audit_equal.
Update calls to security_filter_rule_init()/match() to reflect
the change.
Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
===================================================================
--- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && rule->uid != tsk->cred->uid)
return false;
for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
- int rc;
+ int rc = 0;
u32 osid, sid;
if (!rule->lsm[i].rule)
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
security_inode_getsecid(inode, &osid);
rc = security_filter_rule_match(osid,
rule->lsm[i].type,
- AUDIT_EQUAL,
+ Audit_equal,
rule->lsm[i].rule,
NULL);
break;
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_m
security_task_getsecid(tsk, &sid);
rc = security_filter_rule_match(sid,
rule->lsm[i].type,
- AUDIT_EQUAL,
+ Audit_equal,
rule->lsm[i].rule,
NULL);
default:
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_
entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type = audit_type;
result = security_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type,
- AUDIT_EQUAL, args,
+ Audit_equal, args,
&entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule);
return result;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-05 23:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-05 17:12 [PATCH] integrity: lsm audit rule matching fix Mimi Zohar
2009-05-05 23:14 ` James Morris
2009-05-05 23:25 ` James Morris
2009-05-05 23:46 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-05-05 23:38 ` Mimi Zohar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®