aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/security
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>2012-09-27 08:57:10 -0400
committerMimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>2013-01-16 17:49:44 -0500
commit750943a30714b7e9a5a2b0e08eeef7a808b5a869 (patch)
treea75f963abc43a13e3d1a558b2f8c3d47b018b63d /security
parentdef3e8b9ee23cb69036910e48ec4e3eff40e04cb (diff)
ima: remove enforce checking duplication
Based on the IMA appraisal policy, files are appraised. For those files appraised, the IMA hooks return the integrity appraisal result, assuming IMA-appraisal is in enforcing mode. This patch combines both of these criteria (in policy and enforcing file integrity), removing the checking duplication. Changelog v1: - Update hook comments Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'security')
-rw-r--r--security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c52
1 files changed, 20 insertions, 32 deletions
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index 45de18e9a6f2..1cd4eb2c3b90 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -208,7 +208,9 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
208 kfree(pathbuf); 208 kfree(pathbuf);
209out: 209out:
210 mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); 210 mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
211 return (rc && must_appraise) ? -EACCES : 0; 211 if ((rc && must_appraise) && (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE))
212 return -EACCES;
213 return 0;
212} 214}
213 215
214/** 216/**
@@ -219,19 +221,15 @@ out:
219 * Measure files being mmapped executable based on the ima_must_measure() 221 * Measure files being mmapped executable based on the ima_must_measure()
220 * policy decision. 222 * policy decision.
221 * 223 *
222 * Return 0 on success, an error code on failure. 224 * On success return 0. On integrity appraisal error, assuming the file
223 * (Based on the results of appraise_measurement().) 225 * is in policy and IMA-appraisal is in enforcing mode, return -EACCES.
224 */ 226 */
225int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot) 227int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot)
226{ 228{
227 int rc = 0; 229 if (file && (prot & PROT_EXEC))
228 230 return process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
229 if (!file) 231 MAY_EXEC, FILE_MMAP);
230 return 0; 232 return 0;
231 if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
232 rc = process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
233 MAY_EXEC, FILE_MMAP);
234 return (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) ? rc : 0;
235} 233}
236 234
237/** 235/**
@@ -244,18 +242,15 @@ int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot)
244 * So we can be certain that what we verify and measure here is actually 242 * So we can be certain that what we verify and measure here is actually
245 * what is being executed. 243 * what is being executed.
246 * 244 *
247 * Return 0 on success, an error code on failure. 245 * On success return 0. On integrity appraisal error, assuming the file
248 * (Based on the results of appraise_measurement().) 246 * is in policy and IMA-appraisal is in enforcing mode, return -EACCES.
249 */ 247 */
250int ima_bprm_check(struct linux_binprm *bprm) 248int ima_bprm_check(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
251{ 249{
252 int rc; 250 return process_measurement(bprm->file,
253
254 rc = process_measurement(bprm->file,
255 (strcmp(bprm->filename, bprm->interp) == 0) ? 251 (strcmp(bprm->filename, bprm->interp) == 0) ?
256 bprm->filename : bprm->interp, 252 bprm->filename : bprm->interp,
257 MAY_EXEC, BPRM_CHECK); 253 MAY_EXEC, BPRM_CHECK);
258 return (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) ? rc : 0;
259} 254}
260 255
261/** 256/**
@@ -265,18 +260,15 @@ int ima_bprm_check(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
265 * 260 *
266 * Measure files based on the ima_must_measure() policy decision. 261 * Measure files based on the ima_must_measure() policy decision.
267 * 262 *
268 * Always return 0 and audit dentry_open failures. 263 * On success return 0. On integrity appraisal error, assuming the file
269 * (Return code will be based upon measurement appraisal.) 264 * is in policy and IMA-appraisal is in enforcing mode, return -EACCES.
270 */ 265 */
271int ima_file_check(struct file *file, int mask) 266int ima_file_check(struct file *file, int mask)
272{ 267{
273 int rc;
274
275 ima_rdwr_violation_check(file); 268 ima_rdwr_violation_check(file);
276 rc = process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name, 269 return process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
277 mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC), 270 mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC),
278 FILE_CHECK); 271 FILE_CHECK);
279 return (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) ? rc : 0;
280} 272}
281EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ima_file_check); 273EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ima_file_check);
282 274
@@ -286,19 +278,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ima_file_check);
286 * 278 *
287 * Measure/appraise kernel modules based on policy. 279 * Measure/appraise kernel modules based on policy.
288 * 280 *
289 * Always return 0 and audit dentry_open failures. 281 * On success return 0. On integrity appraisal error, assuming the file
290 * Return code is based upon measurement appraisal. 282 * is in policy and IMA-appraisal is in enforcing mode, return -EACCES.
291 */ 283 */
292int ima_module_check(struct file *file) 284int ima_module_check(struct file *file)
293{ 285{
294 int rc;
295
296 if (!file) 286 if (!file)
297 rc = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN; 287 return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */
298 else 288 return process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
299 rc = process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name, 289 MAY_EXEC, MODULE_CHECK);
300 MAY_EXEC, MODULE_CHECK);
301 return (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) ? rc : 0;
302} 290}
303 291
304static int __init init_ima(void) 292static int __init init_ima(void)