Re: [PATCH 6/8] ima: remove unnecessary code

[Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@samsung.com>]

On 03/09/14 16:08, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 10:19 +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: 
>> If ima_appraise is 0, then action would not mandate to perform
>> appraisal and ima_appraise_measurement will never be called.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@samsung.com>
> The policy determines whether or not a file should be appraised.
> Whether IMA is configured and enabled to appraise files is a different
> issue.  The test is not done in process_measurement(), but deferred to
> here.

Hi,

Policy requests honors "ima_appraise" variable.
There wont be any appraisal action if 'ima_appraise' is disabled.

See bellow...

--------------------
int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, int mask, int function)
{
        .........
        if (!ima_appraise)
                flags &= ~IMA_APPRAISE;
        ..........
--------------

- Dmitry
> Mimi
>
>> ---
>>  security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 2 --
>>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
>> index 225fd94..013ec3f 100644
>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
>> @@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(int func, struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
>>  	enum integrity_status status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
>>  	int rc = xattr_len, hash_start = 0;
>>
>> -	if (!ima_appraise)
>> -		return 0;
>>  	if (!inode->i_op->getxattr)
>>  		return INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>