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 v0 2/2] IMA: Call queue functions to measure keys
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        matthewgarrett@google.com, sashal@kernel.org,
        jamorris@linux.microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org
References: <20191127025212.3077-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20191127025212.3077-3-nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
 <1575331353.4793.471.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <e89dcb1c-c463-919a-aabb-e285d884a914@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 08:09:20 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1575331353.4793.471.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for reviewing the changes Mimi. I'll address your comments in the 
next update.

> 
> Overwriting the initial policy is highly recommended, but not everyone
> defines a custom policy.  Should there be a time limit or some other
> criteria before deleting the key measurement queue?
> 
> Mimi

For the above, I feel checking for the presence of custom policy, if 
that is possible, would be a more deterministic approach compared to 
having a time limit.

On my machine, systemd loads the custom IMA policy from 
/etc/ima/ima-policy if that file is present. Is this the recommended way 
to configure custom IMA policy? If yes, can the IMA initialization 
function check for the presence of the above file?

Another way to address this issue is to define a new CONFIG parameter to 
determine whether or not to support deferred processing of keys. If this 
config is chosen, custom IMA policy must be defined.

Least preferred option would be to leave the queued keys as is if custom 
policy is not defined - at the cost of, maybe, a non-trivial amount of 
kernel memory consumed.

If detection of custom policy is not possible, then define a timer to 
drain the key measurement queue.

Please let me know which approach you think is optimal.

thanks,
  -lakshmi