On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:37:03 -0500 Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> wrote:
> If security_filter_rule_init() doesn't return a rule, then not everything > is as fine as the return code implies. > > This bug only occurs when the LSM (eg. SELinux) is disabled at runtime. > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> > Cc: Stable Kernel <[email protected]> > --- > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > index aef8c0a..d661afb 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > @@ -253,6 +253,8 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct > ima_measure_rule_entry *entry, > result = security_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type, > Audit_equal, args, > &entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule); > + if (!entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule) > + return -EINVAL; > return result; > } > You've cc'ed -stable but you didn't tell us what are the user-visible effects of this bug. This makes it rather hard for others to understand why you believe the patch should be backported. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
