Re: [PATCH v7 14/14] ima: Setup securityfs for IMA namespace
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Date: 2021-12-16 21:38:21
Also in:
linux-security-module, lkml
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Date: 2021-12-16 21:38:21
Also in:
linux-security-module, lkml
On 12/16/21 08:51, Christian Brauner wrote:
quoted
+int ima_fs_ns_init(struct user_namespace *user_ns, struct dentry *root) { struct ima_namespace *ns = user_ns->ima_ns; - struct dentry *ima_dir; + struct dentry *int_dir; + struct dentry *ima_dir = NULL; struct dentry *ima_symlink = NULL; struct dentry *binary_runtime_measurements = NULL; struct dentry *ascii_runtime_measurements = NULL; struct dentry *runtime_measurements_count = NULL; struct dentry *violations = NULL; - ima_dir = securityfs_create_dir("ima", integrity_dir); + /* FIXME: update when evm and integrity are namespaced */ + if (user_ns != &init_user_ns) { + int_dir = + securityfs_create_dir("integrity", root); + if (IS_ERR(int_dir)) + return -1;That should probably be return PTR_ERR(int_dir)
That's actually from current usptream ( https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c#L457 ) The question is then whether at the end it should also return something else than what it currently returns: out: securityfs_remove(violations); [...] securityfs_remove(ima_policy); return -1;