Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        Justin Forbes <jforbes@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:24:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20190204223026.GR11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
References: <1548962339-10681-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <1548962339-10681-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <20190204203850.GP11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
         <1549317910.4146.124.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <20190204223026.GR11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1549369479.4146.142.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:30 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:05:10PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 12:38 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

> > I don't see a need for an additional LSM just for verifying kernel
> > module signatures.
> 
> But it is one, module signing was just spawned pre the boom of LSMs.
> 
> I do believe that treating the code as such would help with its reading
> and long term maintenance.
> 
> Anyway, I had to try to convince you.

Perhaps, after IMA supports appended signatures (for kernel modules),
I could see making the existing kernel module appended signature
verification an LSM.

For now, other than updating the comment, would you be willing to add
your Review/Ack to this patch?

Mimi