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 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN EVM status
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com, mjg59@google.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 07:48:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <e81b761c-9133-a432-4d06-3cfe57e29e4b@huawei.com>
References: <20190516161257.6640-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <20190516161257.6640-3-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <1558387212.4039.77.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <e81b761c-9133-a432-4d06-3cfe57e29e4b@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1558439323.4039.141.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:26 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@
> >>   			Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" }
> >>   			default: "enforce"
> >>   
> >> +	ima_appraise_req_evm
> >> +			[IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests.
> > 
> > As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command
> > line options as possible.  Is there a reason for not extending
> > "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"?
> 
> ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which
> probably is done when the system is in production.
> 
> Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if
> CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n?

Yes, that should be fine.  It's making "ima_appraise" stricter.

Mimi