Re: [patch] security: ima_file_mmap() don't just return zero

[Vikram Dhillon]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vikram Dhillon <dhillonv10@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 03/06/2010 04:30:33 PM:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > It seems like we should return an error here. ÂThat's what the comment
>> > says we should do.
>> >
>> > I also removed an out of date comment. ÂIt wasn't needed and seemed
>> > likely
>> > to get out of date again.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>
> The current code and comment are correct, as the return code will reflect
> the file's integrity appraisal, which hasn't yet been implemented.
>
> Mimi

Oh right :) I guess we aren't at a point yet to enforce integrity, so
what should the return code return? Based on the comment the code
seemed okay but I think we may have to base it on measurement
appraisal in LIM (then again, not too sure if this is the right
approach).

-- 
Regards,
Vikram Dhillon

~~~
There are lots of Linux users who don't care how the kernel works, but
only want to use it. That is a tribute to how good Linux is.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/