Hi Xing,Thanks. I test the change, it can resolve the regression.
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 11:21 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Do you have time to take a look at this? we noticed a 3.7%
regression of boot-time.dhcp and a 84.2% regression of
stress-ng.icache.ops_per_sec. Thanks.
On 6/3/2020 5:11 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 3.7% regression of boot-time.dhcp due to commit:
commit: 8eb613c0b8f19627ba1846dcf78bb2c85edbe8dd ("ima: verify mprotect change is consistent with mmap policy")
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
in testcase: stress-ng
on test machine: 96 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU @ 2.10GHz with 192G memory
with following parameters:
nr_threads: 100%
disk: 1HDD
testtime: 30s
class: cpu-cache
cpufreq_governor: performance
ucode: 0x500002c
Does the following change resolve it?
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index c44414a7f82e..78e1dfc8a3f2 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -426,7 +426,8 @@ int ima_file_mprotect(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long prot)
int pcr;
/* Is mprotect making an mmap'ed file executable? */
- if (!vma->vm_file || !(prot & PROT_EXEC) || (vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC))
+ if (!(ima_policy_flag & IMA_APPRAISE) || !vma->vm_file ||
+ !(prot & PROT_EXEC) || (vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC))
return 0;
security_task_getsecid(current, &secid);