Re: [PATCH] security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c: Fix return value

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 15:00 +0800, wzt wzt wrote:
> Hi:
>   In security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c ima_file_mmap() called by
> security_file_mmap(), it depend on the return value of
> ima_file_mmap(), not always return 0. see also in ima_bprm_check().
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: wzt <zhitong.wangzt@alibaba-inc.com>
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index 294b005..705a991 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot)
>         if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
>                 rc = process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
>                                          MAY_EXEC, FILE_MMAP);
> -       return 0;
> +       return rc;
>  }
> 
>  /**
> @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int ima_bprm_check(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> 
>         rc = process_measurement(bprm->file, bprm->filename,
>                                  MAY_EXEC, BPRM_CHECK);
> -       return 0;
> +       return rc;
>  }

nack.  Sorry, we're not at the point where we can enforce integrity. The
return code will eventually be based on measurement appraisal.

Mimi