From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3483C04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C928F2173C for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727262AbfEULtD (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 07:49:03 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:54842 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726750AbfEULtD (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 07:49:03 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4LBmRRm045985 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:49:02 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2smfpv2ymj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:49:01 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 21 May 2019 12:48:59 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 21 May 2019 12:48:56 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4LBmtK133161418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 May 2019 11:48:55 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9085EAE053; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:48:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BEFBAE045; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:48:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.80.126]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:48:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN EVM status From: Mimi Zohar To: Roberto Sassu , dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com, mjg59@google.com Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 07:48:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20190516161257.6640-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20190516161257.6640-3-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <1558387212.4039.77.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19052111-0008-0000-0000-000002E8EB58 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19052111-0009-0000-0000-00002255A150 Message-Id: <1558439323.4039.141.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-21_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905210073 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:26 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@ > >> Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" } > >> default: "enforce" > >> > >> + ima_appraise_req_evm > >> + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests. > > > > As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command > > line options as possible.  Is there a reason for not extending > > "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"? > > ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which > probably is done when the system is in production. > > Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if > CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n? Yes, that should be fine.  It's making "ima_appraise" stricter. Mimi