Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp2021890yba; Fri, 10 May 2019 05:11:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzvMztdYqMF6UhsyYfdYmQIzMefSYK38HebftxeUh+CVgt5YmnlacfEgY9BCSMpLPjHRAYb X-Received: by 2002:a62:56d9:: with SMTP id h86mr13770191pfj.195.1557490268502; Fri, 10 May 2019 05:11:08 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557490268; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aCrD2Sp2rvw9gJlIF5E+lg+CZgE00cOfpC8RFP4/CXIhtjXU33WYTMPiy9EBp6quXa j8jGYH6d6F/AygqrefyZbGq2YxomyI4D3cJsgviJpjVQSYnLwAAYn+jHqj0ycod3w5D9 CE+cHk9m45MrWWhLGePNl1AnOK5pd2fg+/mWKrquqR/gK4uibzIqPK4sYjOPeCaKHZdA rjRechx9TOj7EM86NNMqKfN5vJeOeCNaXYPGCdZSD+md/uWpcvk/u/4JaJ/jbCgLR3/T nMzRoA8kNe7ImQpxexhp3Mxp7DiwE116urtwoUCEZ87yJtY0q+mm8HVWODdwtIMrrmOa +Orw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject; bh=ZhIjHRhVWgGPuCH0NLy+thE2cqEP7ekskN5KAp45xws=; b=KHfApDNgZctE5kThnqNCUk07kIOwyroQviRxFZbLH3XcaOSVoPm8Joq6zM1f2HrvgQ KTpxcr3Fs66Rpc3bRMG6AnFJHchJeIkViGzAsRPdthsxgMoglPJYjt1fKNzOFr/DX9Lx xvxxt3qjxjl25pVSNg33K1wRICh0l1SEspCh988edbc03Lr7IfWlefPs9I/MHFRKp61v QZPA7knwv0lWyLfNJAYD1vITiiL+5ETNOZUdRYdOuoMw7S2Ni6twiEJYtWXshiYs7xc/ txQxhAaruOzu2TCCnZd3RbFEJ1DWDhNgM8ZIrZ9ngpip7NB3uWHcD4y6i/3bCLqbedtx MOuw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e6si8070265pgj.590.2019.05.10.05.10.49; Fri, 10 May 2019 05:11:08 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727291AbfEJLt4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 10 May 2019 07:49:56 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:39338 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727186AbfEJLtz (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2019 07:49:55 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4ABmtvr020480 for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:49:54 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sd7q42ef6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:49:54 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 10 May 2019 12:49:51 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 10 May 2019 12:49:45 +0100 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4ABnihp46530636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 May 2019 11:49:44 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD974C04A; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:49:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBE34C040; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:49:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.95.242]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:49:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] initramfs: add support for xattrs in the initial ram disk From: Mimi Zohar To: Roberto Sassu , Rob Landley , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, initramfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com, dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com, takondra@cisco.com, kamensky@cisco.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, james.w.mcmechan@gmail.com Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 07:49:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20190509112420.15671-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19051011-4275-0000-0000-0000033363FB X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19051011-4276-0000-0000-00003842DA35 Message-Id: <1557488971.10635.102.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-09_02:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=828 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905100084 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 08:56 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > On 5/9/2019 8:34 PM, Rob Landley wrote: > > On 5/9/19 6:24 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote: > >> The difference with another proposal > >> (https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/888071/) is that xattrs can be > >> included in an image without changing the image format, as opposed to > >> defining a new one. As seen from the discussion, if a new format has to be > >> defined, it should fix the issues of the existing format, which requires > >> more time. > > > > So you've explicitly chosen _not_ to address Y2038 while you're there. > > Can you be more specific? Right, this patch set avoids incrementing the CPIO magic number and the resulting changes required (eg. increasing the timestamp field size), by including a file with the security xattrs in the CPIO.  In either case, including the security xattrs in the initramfs header or as a separate file, the initramfs, itself, needs to be signed. Mimi