From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
The init_once routine memsets the whole object to 0, and then
explicitly sets some of the fields to 0 again. Just remove the explicit
initializations.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
---
security/integrity/iint.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c
index 6fc888ca468e..187b7cb378be 100644
--- a/security/integrity/iint.c
+++ b/security/integrity/iint.c
@@ -153,14 +153,11 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
struct integrity_iint_cache *iint = foo;
memset(iint, 0, sizeof(*iint));
- iint->version = 0;
- iint->flags = 0UL;
iint->ima_file_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
iint->ima_mmap_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
iint->ima_bprm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
iint->ima_read_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
iint->evm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
- iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
}
static int __init integrity_iintcache_init(void)
--
2.13.0
Quoting Jeff Layton ([email protected]):
> From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>
> The init_once routine memsets the whole object to 0, and then
> explicitly sets some of the fields to 0 again. Just remove the explicit
> initializations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]>
> ---
> security/integrity/iint.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c
> index 6fc888ca468e..187b7cb378be 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/iint.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/iint.c
> @@ -153,14 +153,11 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
> struct integrity_iint_cache *iint = foo;
>
> memset(iint, 0, sizeof(*iint));
> - iint->version = 0;
> - iint->flags = 0UL;
> iint->ima_file_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> iint->ima_mmap_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> iint->ima_bprm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> iint->ima_read_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> iint->evm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> - iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
> }
>
> static int __init integrity_iintcache_init(void)
> --
> 2.13.0
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 10:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jeff Layton ([email protected]):
> > From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> >
> > The init_once routine memsets the whole object to 0, and then
> > explicitly sets some of the fields to 0 again. Just remove the explicit
> > initializations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]>
Thanks, queued.
Mimi
>
> > ---
> > security/integrity/iint.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c
> > index 6fc888ca468e..187b7cb378be 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/iint.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/iint.c
> > @@ -153,14 +153,11 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
> > struct integrity_iint_cache *iint = foo;
> >
> > memset(iint, 0, sizeof(*iint));
> > - iint->version = 0;
> > - iint->flags = 0UL;
> > iint->ima_file_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > iint->ima_mmap_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > iint->ima_bprm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > iint->ima_read_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > iint->evm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > - iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int __init integrity_iintcache_init(void)
> > --
> > 2.13.0
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:43 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 10:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jeff Layton ([email protected]):
> > > From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > The init_once routine memsets the whole object to 0, and then
> > > explicitly sets some of the fields to 0 again. Just remove the explicit
> > > initializations.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks, queued.
>
> Mimi
>
Hi Mimi,
I notice that this patch hasn't made the last couple of releases. Was it
dropped for some reason?
Thanks,
Jeff
> >
> > > ---
> > > security/integrity/iint.c | 3 ---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c
> > > index 6fc888ca468e..187b7cb378be 100644
> > > --- a/security/integrity/iint.c
> > > +++ b/security/integrity/iint.c
> > > @@ -153,14 +153,11 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
> > > struct integrity_iint_cache *iint = foo;
> > >
> > > memset(iint, 0, sizeof(*iint));
> > > - iint->version = 0;
> > > - iint->flags = 0UL;
> > > iint->ima_file_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > > iint->ima_mmap_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > > iint->ima_bprm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > > iint->ima_read_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > > iint->evm_status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
> > > - iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int __init integrity_iintcache_init(void)
> > > --
> > > 2.13.0
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
>
>
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:01 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:43 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 10:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Jeff Layton ([email protected]):
> > > > From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > The init_once routine memsets the whole object to 0, and then
> > > > explicitly sets some of the fields to 0 again. Just remove the explicit
> > > > initializations.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thanks, queued.
> >
> > Mimi
> >
>
> Hi Mimi,
>
> I notice that this patch hasn't made the last couple of releases. Was it
> dropped for some reason?
Thanks for the reminder. I accidentally dropped it (and Sascha
Hauer's patch). The subject line is too long. Assuming you don't
object, I'll replace the "get rid of" with "removed" and queue the
patch in the next-queued-testing branch.
Mimi
On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 09:35 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:01 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:43 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 10:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Jeff Layton ([email protected]):
> > > > > From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > The init_once routine memsets the whole object to 0, and then
> > > > > explicitly sets some of the fields to 0 again. Just remove the explicit
> > > > > initializations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Thanks, queued.
> > >
> > > Mimi
> > >
> >
> > Hi Mimi,
> >
> > I notice that this patch hasn't made the last couple of releases. Was it
> > dropped for some reason?
>
> Thanks for the reminder. I accidentally dropped it (and Sascha
> Hauer's patch). The subject line is too long. Assuming you don't
> object, I'll replace the "get rid of" with "removed" and queue the
> patch in the next-queued-testing branch.
>
> Mimi
>
Sounds good.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>