Re: [patch] security: ima_file_mmap() don't just return zero
From: Vikram Dhillon
Date: Sat Mar 06 2010 - 22:30:07 EST
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 I also removed an out of date comment.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 to get out of date again.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.
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
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/