On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 10:19 +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > If ima_appraise is 0, then action would not mandate to perform > appraisal and ima_appraise_measurement will never be called. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasat...@samsung.com>
The policy determines whether or not a file should be appraised. Whether IMA is configured and enabled to appraise files is a different issue. The test is not done in process_measurement(), but deferred to here. Mimi > --- > security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > index 225fd94..013ec3f 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > @@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(int func, struct > integrity_iint_cache *iint, > enum integrity_status status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN; > int rc = xattr_len, hash_start = 0; > > - if (!ima_appraise) > - return 0; > if (!inode->i_op->getxattr) > return INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN; > -- 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/
