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>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 02 May 2019 11:48:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1555978681.4914.305.camel@linux.ibm.com>
References: <CAEFn8qKkXgxUKtribbtFwvG9NykGQo10jQ5Du_i9wJz-wKreOA@mail.gmail.com>
         <1555978681.4914.305.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1556812101.4134.28.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]

On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> [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?

From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?

Mimi