diff mbox series

[v3,11/12] ima: Use the common function to detect LSM conditionals in a rule

Message ID 20200709061911.954326-12-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series ima: Fix rule parsing bugs and extend KEXEC_CMDLINE rule support | expand

Commit Message

Tyler Hicks July 9, 2020, 6:19 a.m. UTC 
Make broader use of ima_rule_contains_lsm_cond() to check if a given
rule contains an LSM conditional. This is a code cleanup and has no
user-facing change.

Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
---

* v3
  - No change
* v2
  - No change

 security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 11 ++---------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index c4d0a0c1f896..81ee8fd1d83a 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -360,17 +360,10 @@  static bool ima_rule_contains_lsm_cond(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
 static void ima_lsm_update_rules(void)
 {
 	struct ima_rule_entry *entry, *e;
-	int i, result, needs_update;
+	int result;
 
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, e, &ima_policy_rules, list) {
-		needs_update = 0;
-		for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
-			if (entry->lsm[i].args_p) {
-				needs_update = 1;
-				break;
-			}
-		}
-		if (!needs_update)
+		if (!ima_rule_contains_lsm_cond(entry))
 			continue;
 
 		result = ima_lsm_update_rule(entry);