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 v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
        sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org
References: <20191218164434.2877-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
 <1576868506.5241.65.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <589b893b-52e4-783c-0f32-608ed1cfd7f9@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:25:02 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1576868506.5241.65.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

On 12/20/2019 11:01 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

Hi Mimi,

>> If the kernel is built with both CONFIG_IMA and
>> CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE enabled then the IMA policy
>> must be applied as a custom policy. Not providing a custom policy
>> in the above configuration would result in asymmeteric keys being queued
>> until a custom policy is loaded. This is by design.
> 
> I didn't notice the "This is by design" here, referring to the memory
> never being freed.  "This is by design" was suppose to refer to
> requiring a custom policy for measuring keys.
> 
> For now, these two patches are queued in the next-integrity-testing
> branch, but I would appreciate your addressing not freeing the memory
> associated with the keys, if a custom policy is not loaded.
> 
> Please note that I truncated the 2/2 patch description, as it repeats
> the existing verification example in commit ("2b60c0ecedf8 IMA: Read
> keyrings= option from the IMA policy").
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Mimi
> 

Sure - I am fine with truncating the 2/2 patch description. Thanks for 
doing that.

Regarding "Freeing the queued keys if custom policy is not loaded":

Shall I create a new patch set to address that and have that be reviewed 
independent of this patch set?

Like you'd suggested earlier, we can wait for a certain time, after IMA 
is initialized, and free the queue if a custom policy was not loaded.

Please let me know.

thanks,
  -lakshmi