Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <eb7a2f5b5cd22cf9231aa0fd8fdb77c729a83428.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement
 LSM (IPE)
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        snitzer@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, agk@redhat.com, paul@paul-moore.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, nramas@linux.microsoft.com, serge@hallyn.com,
        pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, jannh@google.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        axboe@kernel.dk, mdsakib@microsoft.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eparis@redhat.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com
Date:   Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:33:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2008060949410.20084@namei.org>
References: <20200728213614.586312-1-deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>
           <20200802115545.GA1162@bug> <20200802140300.GA2975990@sasha-vm>
           <20200802143143.GB20261@amd>
           <1596386606.4087.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
           <fb35a1f7-7633-a678-3f0f-17cf83032d2b@linux.microsoft.com>
         <1596639689.3457.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
          <alpine.LRH.2.21.2008050934060.28225@namei.org>
         <b08ae82102f35936427bf138085484f75532cff1.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <alpine.LRH.2.21.2008060949410.20084@namei.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need
> > for fs-verity.   Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems,
> > which makes validating file integrity so much easier.  From the
> > beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in
> > the measurement list.  (I thought someone signed on to add that support
> > to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.)
> > 
> > Going forward I see a lot of what we've accomplished being incorporated
> > into the filesystems.  When IMA will be limited to defining a system
> > wide policy, I'll have completed my job.
> 
> What are your thoughts on IPE being a standalone LSM? Would you prefer to 
> see its functionality integrated into IMA?

Improving the integrity subsystem would be preferred.

Mimi