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] kexec_buffer measure
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     prakhar srivastava <prsriva02@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:18:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAEFn8qKkXgxUKtribbtFwvG9NykGQo10jQ5Du_i9wJz-wKreOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEFn8qKkXgxUKtribbtFwvG9NykGQo10jQ5Du_i9wJz-wKreOA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1555978681.4914.305.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[Cc'ing LSM mailing list]

On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:

> 2) Adding a LSM hook
> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
> neutral about this.

As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
the boot command line hash?  Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
boot command line.  Should this be an LSM hook?

Mimi