Re: [PATCH V8 2/3] Define a new ima template field buf

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>]

Hi Prakhar,

> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> > index ea7d8cbf712f..83ca99d65e4b 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ void ima_add_violation(struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
> >  	struct ima_template_entry *entry;
> >  	struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> >  	struct ima_event_data event_data = {iint, file, filename, NULL, 0,
> > -					    cause};
> > +					    cause, NULL, 0};
> 
> This change here and
> 
> >  	int violation = 1;
> >  	int result;
> >  
> > @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ void ima_store_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> >  	struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> >  	struct ima_template_entry *entry;
> >  	struct ima_event_data event_data = {iint, file, filename, xattr_value,
> > -					    xattr_len, NULL};
> > +					    xattr_len, NULL, NULL, 0};
> 
> here and 
> 
> >  	int violation = 0;
> >  
> >  	if (iint->measured_pcrs & (0x1 << pcr))
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
> > index 993d0f1915ff..c8591406c0e2 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
> > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int __init ima_add_boot_aggregate(void)
> >  	struct ima_template_entry *entry;
> >  	struct integrity_iint_cache tmp_iint, *iint = &tmp_iint;
> >  	struct ima_event_data event_data = {iint, NULL, boot_aggregate_name,
> > -					    NULL, 0, NULL};
> > +					    NULL, 0, NULL, NULL, 0};
> 
> here, don't belong in this patch.  It belongs in "IMA: support for per
> policy rule template formats", in case it should ever be backported.
>  Please post this as a separate patch, that will be squashed with
> "IMA: support for per policy rule template formats".

Might mistake.  I should have picked up Thaigo's "ima: Use designated
initializers for struct ima_event_data".  Please drop these changes
instead.

thanks,

Mimi

> 
> >  	int result = -ENOMEM;
> >  	int violation = 0;
> >  	struct {
>