Re: [PATCH v39 01/42] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule

[Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>]

On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 17:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 4:34 PM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On 6/21/2024 10:23 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 15:07 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:50 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Create real functions for the ima_filter_rule interfaces.
> > > > > > These replace #defines that obscure the reuse of audit
> > > > > > interfaces. The new functions are put in security.c because
> > > > > > they use security module registered hooks that we don't
> > > > > > want exported.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > > > > To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >   include/linux/security.h     | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >   security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 26 --------------------------
> > > > > >   security/security.c          | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >   3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Mimi, Roberto, are you both okay if I merge this into the lsm/dev
> > > > > branch?  The #define approach taken with the ima_filter_rule_XXX
> > > > > macros likely contributed to the recent problem where the build
> > > > > problem caused by the new gfp_t parameter was missed during review;
> > > > > I'd like to get this into an upstream tree independent of the larger
> > > > > stacking effort as I believe it has standalone value.
> > > > 
> > > > ... and I just realized neither Mimi or Roberto were directly CC'd on
> > > > that last email, oops.  Fixed.
> > > 
> > > Paul, I do see things posted on the linux-integrity mailing list pretty quickly.
> > > Unfortunately, something came up midday and I'm just seeing this now.  As for
> > > Roberto, it's probably a time zone issue.
> > 
> > Will review/check it first thing Monday morning.
> 
> Thanks Roberto, no rush.

Ok, so no problem from my side to upstream the patch.

My only comment would be that I would not call the new functions with
the ima_ prefix, being those in security.c, which is LSM agnostic, but
I would rather use a name that more resembles the differences, if any.

If not:

Acked-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>

Thanks

Roberto