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;
Message-ID: <158dc2d3398316edefbafdb1cfea5eca840a06e6.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] IMA: add support to measure duplicate buffer for
 critical data hook
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>,
        stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com,
        agk@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, gmazyland@gmail.com,
        paul@paul-moore.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
Date:   Mon, 08 Feb 2021 15:24:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20210130004519.25106-4-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
References: <20210130004519.25106-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
         <20210130004519.25106-4-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tushar,

On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 16:45 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:

> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue.c
> 
> index c096ef8945c7..fbf359495fa8 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue.c
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static int ima_pcr_extend(struct tpm_digest *digests_arg, int pcr)
>   */
>  int ima_add_template_entry(struct ima_template_entry *entry, int violation,
>  			   const char *op, struct inode *inode,
> -			   const unsigned char *filename)
> +			   const unsigned char *filename, bool allow_dup)
>  {
>  	u8 *digest = entry->digests[ima_hash_algo_idx].digest;
> 
 	struct tpm_digestate_entry(struct ima_template_entry *entry, int violation,
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&ima_extend_list_mutex);
>  	if (!violation) {
> -		if (ima_lookup_digest_entry(digest, entry->pcr)) {
> +		if (!allow_dup &&
> +		    ima_lookup_digest_entry(digest, entry->pcr)) {

Can't this change be simplified to "if (!violation && !allow_dup)"?

Also perhaps instead of passing another variable "allow_dup" to each of
these functions, pass a mask containing violation and allow_dup.

>  			audit_cause = "hash_exists";
>  			result = -EEXIST;
>  			goto out;

thanks,

Mimi