Re: [PATCH 11/12] IMA: turn ima_policy_flags into __wr_after_init

[Igor Stoppa]

Hi,

On 20/12/2018 19:30, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Hello Igor,
>
> Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
> > index 59d834219cd6..5f4e13e671bf 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >   #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
> >   #include <linux/slab.h>
> >   #include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/prmem.h>
> >
> >   #include "ima.h"
> >
> > @@ -98,9 +99,9 @@ void __init ima_load_x509(void)
> >   {
> >   	int unset_flags = ima_policy_flag & IMA_APPRAISE;
> >
> > -	ima_policy_flag &= ~unset_flags;
> > +	wr_assign(ima_policy_flag, ima_policy_flag & ~unset_flags);
> >   	integrity_load_x509(INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA, CONFIG_IMA_X509_PATH);
> > -	ima_policy_flag |= unset_flags;
> > +	wr_assign(ima_policy_flag, ima_policy_flag | unset_flags);
> >   }
> >   #endif
>
> In the cover letter, you said:
>
> > As the name implies, the write protection kicks in only after init()
> > is completed; before that moment, the data is modifiable in the usual
> > way.
>
> Given that, is it still necessary or useful to use wr_assign() in a
> function marked with __init?

I might have been over enthusiastic of using the wr interface.
You are right, I can drop these two. Thank you.

--
igor