Message-ID: <29f45743-ba43-c2ec-4494-7253170ab9ce@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:05:22 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] evm: call dump_security_xattr() in all cases to
 remove code duplication
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
        <paul@paul-moore.com>, <jmorris@namei.org>, <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Christian Brauner b <brauner@kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230129004637.191106-1-xiujianfeng@huawei.com>
 <a7f1324e88023a86c3489d53268bde17069ece1f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <c95487db-f304-2610-5e93-41d7b39934d7@huawei.com>
 <9c6826bb7e5aa85be06865f5a2bed0e30b4ad33e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <9c6826bb7e5aa85be06865f5a2bed0e30b4ad33e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/1/30 20:17, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> [Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]
> 
> On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 12:02 +0800, xiujianfeng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2023/1/30 0:15, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> @@ -254,15 +264,9 @@ static int evm_calc_hmac_or_hash(struct dentry *dentry,
>>>>  			if (is_ima)
>>>>  				ima_present = true;
>>>>  
>>>> -			if (req_xattr_value_len < 64)
>>>> -				pr_debug("%s: (%zu) [%*phN]\n", req_xattr_name,
>>>> -					 req_xattr_value_len,
>>>> -					 (int)req_xattr_value_len,
>>>> -					 req_xattr_value);
>>>> -			else
>>>> -				dump_security_xattr(req_xattr_name,
>>>> -						    req_xattr_value,
>>>> -						    req_xattr_value_len);
>>>> +			dump_security_xattr(req_xattr_name,
>>>> +					    req_xattr_value,
>>>> +					    req_xattr_value_len);
>>>>  			continue;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  		size = vfs_getxattr_alloc(&nop_mnt_idmap, dentry, xattr->name,
>>>
>>> Hm, this patch doesn't apply properly.
>>
>> I noticed that the patch fails to apply on linux master, however this
>> patch is meant for linux-next, would you please maybe have a look?
> 
> I wasn't aware of the change.  However, merge conflicts should not be
> "fixed", but mentioned immediately after the patch break line ("---") .
> FYI, this merge conflict is a result of commit 4609e1f18e19 ("fs: port
> ->permission() to pass mnt_idmap").
> 
> Patches for the linux-integrity branch should be based on the next-
> integrity branch.

Thanks mimi, I assume you mean next-integrity branch on
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/zohar/linux-integrity.git/,
new patch already sent.