On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Mehmet Kayaalp wrote:

quoted

quoted

+unsigned long iint_flags(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
+			 struct ns_status *status)
+{
+	if (!status)
+		return iint->flags;
+
+	return iint->flags & (status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS);

Just to confirm, is there any situation where:

   iint->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS != status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS

? i.e. can this line just be:

   return status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS;

As Guilherme had pointed out, the first & should be |.

Sorry, that mail got filtered somehow, thanks. Per your discussion, I
guess the most defensive way is:

iint->flags & ~IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS | status->flags & IMA_NS_STATUS_FLAGS

in case something comes along and sets IMA_AUDITED on the root iint,
we don't want it to propagate to this ns' status unnecessarily.

Anyway, thanks!

Tycho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html