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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1568237365.5783.39.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1568237365.5783.39.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:38:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whuzoK+sP+feizU520p7ChHqdX8pmwyCnnKTyUNJKngZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] integrity subsystem updates for v5.4
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:29 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> The major feature in this pull request is IMA support for measuring
> and appraising appended file signatures.  In addition are a couple of
> bug fixes and code cleanup to use struct_size().

How is the file signature any different from (and/or better than) the
fs-verity support?

The fs-verity support got fairly extensively discussed, and is
apparently going to actually be widely used by Android, and it an
independent feature of any security model.

What does the IMA version bring to the table?

             Linus