From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: agk@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, snitzer@redhat.com,
jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, zohar@linux.ibm.com,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, sashal@kernel.org,
jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com, nramas@linux.microsoft.com,
mdsakib@linux.microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:25:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35afdffe-179c-aedd-333a-9dfc20635fc3@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c1466cc8-8a08-708a-4629-234485bb833e@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 4/7/2020 2:31 PM, Nayna wrote:
>
> On 4/6/20 6:14 PM, deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> Changelog:
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> v1: Introduced
>>
>> v2:
>> Split the second patch of the previous series into two.
>> Minor corrections in the cover-letter and documentation
>> comments regarding CAP_MAC_ADMIN checks in IPE.
>>
>> Overview:
>> ------------------------------------
>> IPE is a Linux Security Module, which allows for a configurable
>> policy to enforce integrity requirements on the whole system. It
>> attempts to solve the issue of Code Integrity: that any code being
>> executed (or files being read), are identical to the version that
>> was built by a trusted source.
>
> Can you please clarify the "motivation" for this patch set more
> clearly? It seems to define a policy layer on top of dm-verity, which
> may be compiled into the kernel. In the motivation, can you please
> also make it explicit why existing mechanisms cannot be extended to
> achieve your purpose?
>
This LSM was born out of a motivation to provide strong integrity
guarantees without a dependency on file-metadata, allow the integrity
claims to be configurable on a hot system, and allow for the mechanisms
for ensuring integrity to be extendable.
This naturally had to be an LSM, as controlling execution at the block
or filesystem layer does not make sense. Existing LSM implementations
use filesystem metadata, and since one of IPE's goals is to secure file
metadata, it is circular to depend on the file metadata itself to make
decisions about whether the file has been modified.
Additionally, IPE while IPE currently provides dm-verity support and the
trust root support, it can be easily extended to other implementations
such as fs-verity. At it's core, IPE is attempting to separate mechanism
(dm-verity, fs-verity, etc.) from policy (IPE).
> Also, AFIK, the changelog should be moved to the end of the patch
> description.
>
Thanks! I'll move the changelog.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-09 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-06 22:14 [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/12] scripts: add ipe tooling to generate boot policy deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/12] security: add ipe lsm evaluation loop and audit system deven.desai
2020-04-07 12:13 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-09 16:27 ` Deven Bowers
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/12] security: add ipe lsm policy parser and policy loading deven.desai
2020-04-07 15:39 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-09 16:41 ` Deven Bowers
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/12] ipe: add property for trust of boot volume deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/12] fs: add security blob and hooks for block_device deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/12] dm-verity: move signature check after tree validation deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/12] dm-verity: add bdev_setsecurity hook for dm-verity signature deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/12] ipe: add property for signed dmverity volumes deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/12] dm-verity: add bdev_setsecurity hook for root-hash deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/12] ipe: add property for dmverity roothash deven.desai
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/12] documentation: Add IPE Documentation deven.desai
2020-04-14 15:38 ` Jonathan Corbet
2020-04-14 21:18 ` Deven Bowers
2020-04-06 22:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/12] cleanup: uapi/linux/audit.h deven.desai
2020-04-07 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) Nayna
2020-04-09 16:25 ` Deven Bowers [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=35afdffe-179c-aedd-333a-9dfc20635fc3@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdsakib@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).