ima: property parameter unused in ima_match_rules()

[Roberto Sassu]

On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 10:57 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 2:50 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 10:23 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > On 11/25/2024 3:38 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I noticed that the `prop` parameter of `ima_match_rules()` is
> > > > currently unused (due to shadowing).
> > > > Is that by design or a mishap of the recent rework?
> > > > 
> > > > Related commits:
> > > > 
> > > > 37f670a ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_current_getsecid")
> > > > 870b7fd ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_audit_rule_match")
> > > > 07f9d2c ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_inode_getsecid")
> > > 
> > > The shadowing was inadvertent. The use of lsm_prop data is
> > > corrected by this patch.
> > 
> > Thanks Casey. Yes, this is what I had in mind.
> 
> Looks good to me too.  Casey can you resend the patch with the proper
> sign-off, commit description, etc.?  Roberto, can we convert your
> comment above into an ACK?

Yes:

Suggested-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
Acked-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>

> Lastly, Mimi and Roberto, would you like me to take this fix up to
> Linus via the LSM tree, or would you prefer to take it via IMA?
> Either way is fine with me as long as we get it fixed :)

It is fine if you take in your tree.

May I also ask to double check for the patches in your PRs that we are
aware and me or Mimi acked our parts?

Thanks!

Roberto