On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 14:31 +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -158,7 +165,8 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(int func, struct
> > integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> > }
> > switch (xattr_value->type) {
> > case IMA_XATTR_DIGEST:
> > - if (iint->flags & IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED) {
> > + if (iint->flags & IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED ||
> > + iint->flags & IMA_DIGSIG_OPTIONAL) {
> > cause = "IMA signature required";
> > status = INTEGRITY_FAIL;
> > break;
>
> This looks a bit odd... If "optional" signature is missing - we fail..
> It is optional... Why we should fail?
'imasig_optional' does not only mean that the signature is optional, but
also implies that it has to be a digital signature, not a hash. This
latter part is what IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED means.
If 'imasig_optional' set both 'IMA_DIGSIG_OPTIONAL' and
'IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED', then this change wouldn't be necessary.
IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED would enforce that it is a signature.
IMA_DIGSIG_OPTIONAL would fail only for files with invalid signatures.
thanks,
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
