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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E447EC64EC4 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230085AbjCJNjH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:39:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34084 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229577AbjCJNjH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:39:07 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E67F10A13F; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 05:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32ACCCBE015250; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:42 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=CPsFbZYndVlyFYB19JflEEI+kjqoJVDliu8k0oxQOSU=; b=h8Lyc7XU0upk7G9ZEuCGeD/LB7YL2WbsR1cHMXAy9fUePpRlaXzJm0dMhT3ZTyQQhXRd AsSmxRt/B+qAktUfGBKvDQA2DECwfYrWhXoCI4jiSMNAH23oZtIj0WdTW25hgfQlpkxN xauiFmPoQGFjUY00mA+WFIJeC1Q24ibY4BXSKIT5O1rzHDvBrVKgnLTXIBN2QTDBoLQw t6QITb/8br6Fm+VK8F5BZRNqjkY0bzaxQE3o3W8tJt4GcPu6O+Nj6JrLxjAElCZA8pU3 ndckA+e/C+g8AJ0hbUNmtXipUAxk/vB5HuJ9PiscMc6GiN/rx2ci9hCiHekT06mKJHQW Tg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3p84be21rg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:41 +0000 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 32ADcQxw030762; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:41 GMT Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3p84be21r7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:41 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32ACEOJr022813; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:40 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.114]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3p6fky2w7m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:40 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.230]) by smtprelay04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 32ADccWu50463030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:39 GMT Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D6D58066; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359675805D; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-f45666cc-3089-11b2-a85c-c57d1a57929f.ibm.com (unknown [9.160.71.208]) by smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:38:37 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3c2ad86758d13939afa9dceaab87fee2ded8201f.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST and set it for the integrity LSM From: Mimi Zohar To: Paul Moore Cc: Roberto Sassu , dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, mic@digikod.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, Roberto Sassu Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:38:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20230309085433.1810314-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <20230309085433.1810314-2-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <397cb437bbd41e7eb223a07bc92a10bb57df696e.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: iryH_5qnHU-5Ujt9fx_k9Up4rmBSetUC X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: shjOtSWiP1adOUJiu-6Rsxphj375H_UX Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-03-10_03,2023-03-09_01,2023-02-09_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2303100109 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 17:04 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:21 AM Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 09:54 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > From: Roberto Sassu > > > > > > Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needing to be > > > last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command line or > > > configuration. > > > > > > Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, this is > > > the only LSM expected to use it. > > > > > > Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabled > > > and put at the end of the LSM list. > > > > > > Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true if an > > > LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel would not > > > wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its order is > > > LSM_ORDER_LAST. > > > > > > Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection") > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar > > Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead ... > > The 'Signed-off-by' tag is in reference to the DCO, which makes sense > to add if you are a patch author or are merging a patch into a tree, > but it doesn't make much sense as a ACK/thumbs-up; this is why we have > the 'Acked-by' and 'Reviewed-by' tags. I generally read the > 'Acked-by' tag as "I'm the one responsible for a chunk of code > affected by this patch and I'm okay with this change" and the > 'Reviewed-by' tag as "I looked at this patch and it looks like a good > change to me". Perhaps surprisingly to some, while an 'Acked-by' is a > requirement for merging in a lot of cases, I appreciate 'Reviewed-by' > tags much more as it indicates the patch is getting some third-part > eyeballs on it ... so all you lurkers on this list, if you're > reviewing patches as they hit your inbox, don't be shy about posting > your 'Reviewed-by' tag if your comfortable doing so, we all welcome > the help :) > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin In this case, it was a bit unclear who actually was going to upstream this patch set. It's better that you upstream it, but since this affects subsequent IMA and EVM patches, please create a topic branch. -- thanks, Mimi