> > @@ -228,9 +229,28 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, char
> > *buf, loff_t size,
> > IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK | IMA_APPRAISED_SUBMASK |
> > IMA_ACTION_FLAGS);
> >
> > - if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags))
> > - /* reset all flags if ima_inode_setxattr was called */
> > + /*
> > + * Reset the measure, appraise and audit cached flags either if:
> > + * - ima_inode_setxattr was called, or
> > + * - based on filesystem feature flag
> > + * forcing the file to be re-evaluated.
> > + */
> > + if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags)) {
> > iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK;
> > + } else if (inode->i_sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_IMA_NO_CACHE) {
> > + if (action & IMA_MEASURE) {
> > + iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
> > + iint->flags &=
> > + ~(IMA_COLLECTED | IMA_MEASURE | IMA_MEASURED);
> > + }
> > + if (action & IMA_APPRAISE)
> > + iint->flags &=
> > + ~(IMA_COLLECTED | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_APPRAISED |
> > + IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK | IMA_APPRAISED_SUBMASK);
> > + if (action & IMA_AUDIT)
> > + iint->flags &=
> > + ~(IMA_COLLECTED | IMA_AUDIT | IMA_AUDITED);
> > + }
> >
Alban, I don't know what I was thinking, but this can be simplified
like for the IMA_CHANGE_XATTR case. Except in the IMA_CHANGE_XATTR
case, "measured_pcrs" was already reset, whereas in this case
"measured_pcrs" needs to be reset.
Mimi
