From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:54:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1576580064.4579.374.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0223b52e-50d6-ebce-840c-0364b24b1b30@linux.microsoft.com>
On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 15:44 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 12/16/2019 4:30 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> >> +
> >> + if (!list_empty(&ima_keys)) {
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &ima_keys, list)
> >> + list_move_tail(&entry->list, &temp_ima_keys);
> >> + process = true;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + mutex_unlock(&ima_keys_mutex);
> >> +
> >> + if (!process)
> >> + return;
> >
> > The new changes - checking if the list is empty and this test - are
> > unnecessary, as you implied earlier.
> >
> > Mimi
>
> Do you want me to remove this check? I feel it is safer to have this
> check - use a local flag "process" to return if no keys were moved to
> the temp list. Would like to leave it as is - if you don't mind.
Sure
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:54:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1576580064.4579.374.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0223b52e-50d6-ebce-840c-0364b24b1b30@linux.microsoft.com>
On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 15:44 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 12/16/2019 4:30 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> >> +
> >> + if (!list_empty(&ima_keys)) {
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &ima_keys, list)
> >> + list_move_tail(&entry->list, &temp_ima_keys);
> >> + process = true;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + mutex_unlock(&ima_keys_mutex);
> >> +
> >> + if (!process)
> >> + return;
> >
> > The new changes - checking if the list is empty and this test - are
> > unnecessary, as you implied earlier.
> >
> > Mimi
>
> Do you want me to remove this check? I feel it is safer to have this
> check - use a local flag "process" to return if no keys were moved to
> the temp list. Would like to leave it as is - if you don't mind.
Sure
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-17 10:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-13 17:18 [PATCH v4 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:18 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:18 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:18 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 12:30 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-16 12:30 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-16 23:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 23:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-17 10:54 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2019-12-17 10:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-13 17:18 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] IMA: Call workqueue functions to measure queued keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:18 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:25 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-13 17:25 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-13 17:31 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:31 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-15 15:22 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-15 15:22 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 1:12 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 1:12 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 6:53 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 6:53 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 13:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-16 13:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-16 19:20 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 19:20 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 21:17 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 21:17 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 21:37 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 21:37 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 21:52 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 21:52 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-17 22:22 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-17 22:22 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 2:01 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-18 2:01 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-18 2:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 2:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 2:59 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 3:00 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 3:24 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-18 3:24 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1576580064.4579.374.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthewgarrett@google.com \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.