Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a0d1:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp2380700pxa; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSInQyAgFymOJImJFkbAQ7C2mqPkTaEIfCiO/gRtv5HQTQy+ZuFF2rZEphlmULICybqZPO X-Received: by 2002:a50:d8c2:: with SMTP id y2mr9523620edj.114.1596818555461; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1596818555; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=U9yCes/49hyy7w015+sElCXc3Jjzfix4+7gdrdbZtyg8bytPyXiITqb7nKc8/nRPdW O6prRoQK0jyqRzgZRMg3knKtMuHTnEn0u8hi1qX4K4tVf2w1IYAx7i3Gouq+FRI88edn rYAu0+LZ/vP7sr0Ih2cY6M1FVI4guSQmTWNM2EhaJAOp7OpKjdlGYzUGsiwrvuDGLPmD 9/ULC15S/MlfUaBZ5xTkN+isnumXxat+cWc9IVigUHFP0IsKbjNSUcsTBiOkWWuEB5pC tPr7AyBj6bN6MuzFDK5KOQEVGxAaFR+0DDwQGTkPmBHVage09EPs2Z7RScmkD5Ok/JP9 WDcg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=ZmpIjcyRMhF4cH94fNZolyXEU60EiOecaOIa0j+6an0=; b=u15pjkFP73gUbC8X4dTVPwbgbcQQw7LLkOkMw55Z5s2mQjmJwJyhyQuZnY8FsawjJ4 uZsH+umv2CdfsFi/RADtBDHZgYVTqv11a4H2EhBDHxtBp6fdMIgNL2IrfSaaLdlv4wNA /eRi5pmdbQ6Qrch8osbxvUeBqu5mtSgYolRn58KlNP+a6qd3PZN7uBZJj7C62qzH5TuF D6Wm0fwE2wxzZoQZOaFBS6xqcxPZKuIHbNM2Y1pkkrMxcTb3jhrj0MY8IpGx1Qe6Uwlr FzedxKUrm9YmFeUgPI3giiYKXuyhD2wsDES+Ho0fIsNaRU2NUc6hpi5h+pymA6sSmWW6 CyNA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bi13si5546782ejb.740.2020.08.07.09.42.11; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726641AbgHGQlj (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:41:39 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:57952 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725936AbgHGQli (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:41:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 077Gf5ki013063; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:41:05 GMT Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 02:41:05 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Mimi Zohar cc: James Bottomley , Deven Bowers , Pavel Machek , Sasha Levin , 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 Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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> <1596639689.3457.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > 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. > Are you planning to attend Plumbers? Perhaps we could propose a BoF session on this topic. -- James Morris