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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 26F01C433DF for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F562206B2 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="bMeu9VLD" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729705AbgHFRel (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:34:41 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:39642 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729382AbgHFRbn (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:31:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 076EXCZP003778; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 10:33:33 -0400 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 : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=MrweLZr65tdDL5CZMf8GqFvMQW1Pa0eEhdhRCa8/Rl8=; b=bMeu9VLDdOGfRt59JZ1nCfEW4qn+TnVsKMh7ZkE8Rbrz6IK6zZ/7V46qw6msXhAK3x3X WjoZCzT0Ehh04xKqenqoLHPKjddYRzPlVLlwo0rvNkJONfmMk9hWFUn3gGoi9qORgbef 32sJwQ/xgAERC6vf3KcXSSnnB965i3l14tRIlHRYbOCneBpg7S9UM2Paxc44hy9tP/1b pFNra3BULZG4i/NbCagg6W43vHCisfiqrky2Mcd4icM8ZW2zw6zVwKEzYc7YfS/ZtwdJ VEY1Kcrpu3t5N+mG7D02qhqDv/Gl7cvl1TlVuzBDna74gIikinGUNqb1lsXYhKz0nv7R JQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32rhhk4k4a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:33:33 -0400 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 076EXXS5005245; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 10:33:33 -0400 Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32rhhk4k38-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:33:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 076EVGC6007671; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:33:30 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32n018bdfn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 14:33:30 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 076EW1RT62521766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:32:01 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DB4A4054; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:33:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08B0A405B; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:33:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-f45666cc-3089-11b2-a85c-c57d1a57929f.ibm.com (unknown [9.160.58.181]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:33:22 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) From: Mimi Zohar To: James Morris Cc: James Bottomley , Deven Bowers , Pavel Machek , Sasha Levin , snitzer@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, agk@redhat.com, paul@paul-moore.com, corbet@lwn.net, nramas@linux.microsoft.com, serge@hallyn.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, jannh@google.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, axboe@kernel.dk, mdsakib@microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eparis@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:33:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20200728213614.586312-1-deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com> <20200802115545.GA1162@bug> <20200802140300.GA2975990@sasha-vm> <20200802143143.GB20261@amd> <1596386606.4087.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1596639689.3457.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-12.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-06_09:2020-08-06,2020-08-06 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008060104 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > > which makes validating file integrity so much easier. From the > > beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in > > the measurement list. (I thought someone signed on to add that support > > to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.) > > > > Going forward I see a lot of what we've accomplished being incorporated > > into the filesystems. When IMA will be limited to defining a system > > wide policy, I'll have completed my job. > > What are your thoughts on IPE being a standalone LSM? Would you prefer to > see its functionality integrated into IMA? Improving the integrity subsystem would be preferred. Mimi