Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] IMA: generalize keyring specific measurement
 constructs
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com,
        casey@schaufler-ca.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com,
        gmazyland@gmail.com
Cc:     tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, sashal@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        nramas@linux.microsoft.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com
References: <20200923192011.5293-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20200923192011.5293-2-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
 <45aae09df5c301497efc697c17921e9b2a3c8ae8.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <71db5ccf-c9b3-68b0-4d48-93e2b1ba0d98@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:38:13 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <45aae09df5c301497efc697c17921e9b2a3c8ae8.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Thanks Mimi for your overall feedback on this series.
Really appreciate it.

On 2020-10-22 12:39 p.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Tushar,
> 
> On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 12:20 -0700, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> index fe1df373c113..31a772d8a86b 100644
>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> @@ -451,15 +451,19 @@ int ima_lsm_policy_change(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long event,
>>   }
>>   
>>   /**
>> - * ima_match_keyring - determine whether the keyring matches the measure rule
>> - * @rule: a pointer to a rule
>> - * @keyring: name of the keyring to match against the measure rule
>> + * ima_match_rule_data - determine whether the given func_data matches
>> + *			 the measure rule data
>> + * @rule: IMA policy rule
>> + * @opt_list: rule data to match func_data against
>> + * @func_data: data to match against the measure rule data
>>    * @cred: a pointer to a credentials structure for user validation
>>    *
>> - * Returns true if keyring matches one in the rule, false otherwise.
>> + * Returns true if func_data matches one in the rule, false otherwise.
>>    */
>> -static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>> -			      const char *keyring, const struct cred *cred)
>> +static bool ima_match_rule_data(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>> +				const struct ima_rule_opt_list *opt_list,
>> +				const char *func_data,
>> +				const struct cred *cred)
>>   {
>>   	bool matched = false;
>>   	size_t i;
>> @@ -467,14 +471,14 @@ static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>>   	if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && !rule->uid_op(cred->uid, rule->uid))
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> -	if (!rule->keyrings)
>> +	if (!opt_list)
>>   		return true;
> 
> The opt_list should be based on rule->func.  There shouldn't be a need
> to pass it as a variable.
> 
> Mimi
Makes sense. Will do. Thanks Mimi.
~Tushar
> 
>>   
>> -	if (!keyring)
>> +	if (!func_data)
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> -	for (i = 0; i < rule->keyrings->count; i++) {
>> -		if (!strcmp(rule->keyrings->items[i], keyring)) {
>> +	for (i = 0; i < opt_list->count; i++) {
>> +		if (!strcmp(opt_list->items[i], func_data)) {
>>   			matched = true;
>>   			break;
>>   		}