Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with Linus' tree

From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with Linus' tree
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:10:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1358737823.2406.114.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130121131230.9f79cf5dcd8a8ac069594111@canb.auug.org.au>

On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:12 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c between commit a7f2a366f623 ("ima:
> fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing kernel module syscall") from
> Linus' tree and commit 750943a30714 ("ima: remove enforce checking
> duplication") from the security tree.
> 
> I think I fixed it up (see below).

Sorry Stephen, the merged result should look like what's contained in
linux-integrity/next-upstreamed-patches:

int ima_module_check(struct file *file)
{
        if (!file) {
                if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_MODULES) &&
                    (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) {
#ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE
                        return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */
#endif
                }
                return 0;
        }
        return process_measurement(file, file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
                                   MAY_EXEC, MODULE_CHECK);
}

thanks,

Mimi