Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp1351673ybn; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5TEcz6CTp+yOx59aIp4G7NcMjltbkaUpa8peGVU5eOfP00umf665S9I/sRAAUSnKLpR5R X-Received: by 2002:a50:9384:: with SMTP id o4mr6269015eda.8.1570053216335; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1570053216; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=TXwTM+g9kQ0JyIqNkNusyVoMxTGGaHyGrjwIZTQiWSXloBscau/bTqchZtccnX+cAT OI6JTktQd2C0a7COy7m9FgqwHnJ9a0quAaRIqZVlE64qaYpEPjMycp5THlc5A0HCn5KA jNIOOsYgG/Yueqi0x3y3iYPzLVM7VIsX91vR0C1mT0RHX7FCoqcx7c13kSbYPSlnch+F cw6oTx4MoEzl0IEPnqhdxaon8hmr/Vd1F7c+P/SRai9cJqbSEf/e7XK5NBjcBvhkp7x1 TjoJz4P7Ldn7ir5Z2o77B5mVIvNAMx/e7aEQOhGzjdOmUvUzRVD0PbGl5LLiQaeu+Dzo pALA== 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=gmJkgUjJ4Q2x1VlAZc/HS+s1fKtHN5QkOw19nXdIinc=; b=acNKxOYWJKAejoj4c4P1IDdpKqRU/d63OZcduPxAT5MftXvK+H/qjpsvmrXJ69bou9 R9Q5/dmYG/dvh/ilfOqZSpueKch4+yOnRbW64QH8pUZTiH/ZIcwZ753XQmAnRTxFUyac SlLvb8ObFIL1+mV2j+1bO8NJHDPxOgxRCq3Xho2Ad4gDvzIfXbcd88FV2WXujHfVu9zc u1QvLpHtIPWUjpcaS22tLNPsAjC5xX8fQY54zN4WHK6tihbG2Fy5J1K/guQjV4w363/Z wtC2iUEzjmvJdK4eh9zQ6bEYrGgBB8GnkY4eyfvVLZX9dM/Pfd/Y3fXO4aSvunwoOkfy ecOg== 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 r9si228029eju.10.2019.10.02.14.53.12; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 14:53:36 -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 S1729159AbfJBVA0 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:00:26 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:40338 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729030AbfJBVAZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:00:25 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x92KpZtE069676 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:00:24 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vd1sg2nqa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 17:00:24 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 22:00:22 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 2 Oct 2019 22:00:17 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x92L0FGx50855996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:00:15 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC16F11C050; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:00:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B3E11C06C; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:00:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dhcp-9-31-103-196.watson.ibm.com (unknown [9.31.103.196]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:00:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] ima: deprecate permit_directio, instead use appraise_flag From: Mimi Zohar To: Nayna Jain , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Ard Biesheuvel , Jeremy Kerr , Matthew Garret , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Claudio Carvalho , George Wilson , Elaine Palmer , Eric Ricther , "Oliver O'Halloran" , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 17:00:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1569594360-7141-9-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> References: <1569594360-7141-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <1569594360-7141-9-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.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: 19100221-0016-0000-0000-000002B372CE X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19100221-0017-0000-0000-00003314799D Message-Id: <1570050012.4421.50.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-02_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=3 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=763 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910020165 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Nayna, On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 10:25 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > This patch deprecates the existing permit_directio flag, instead adds > it as possible value to appraise_flag parameter. > For eg. > appraise_flag=permit_directio Defining a generic "appraise_flag=", which supports different options, is the right direction.  I would really like to depreciate the "permit_directio" flag, not just change the policy syntax.  For now, let's drop this change. Mimi