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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210108040708.8389-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210108040708.8389-9-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com> <CAHC9VhSJk0wG=WzO3bwsueiy19mMi9m6MamTrQfH8C=gXUtvGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <97328fc71687a0e1c327f6821548be9ba35bb193.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAHC9VhTzaQ_q8gJ0oeok_yJ54XLETNvOuhhKnyRwgqsqvpBLCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <71cddb6c8676ccd63c89364d805cfca76d32cb6e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAHC9VhRhYWEcK7TepZ=LK1m=9Zn_gtOZyAYfamP-TFU3rRH+zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e29a618645b0e73ec06960a02b6da465614689ff.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAHC9VhTHqwKem=MyQBY4TNAq-DOVhwEZS8pjrSE=4OxdEVm-GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3746bc7673df25354411151442a7772b867be396.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <fc80b1a1-ff4d-3bf2-59bd-2cb56135bf0f@linux.microsoft.com> <99be76345f375bb2f485f08a53dcb8ed806dc538.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <99be76345f375bb2f485f08a53dcb8ed806dc538.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:51:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTrxCi=H0ezR6eXjXnHH+atU9ieSZWy6pybOE9eAKnrMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] selinux: include a consumer of the new IMA
 critical data hook
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        casey@schaufler-ca.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com,
        gmazyland@gmail.com, tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> [Cc'ing Sasha]
>
> Hi Lakshmi,
>
> On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 08:22 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > On 1/13/21 6:49 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> > >>> Lakshmi is trying to address the situation where an event changes a
> > >>> value, but then is restored to the original value.  The original and
> > >>> subsequent events are measured, but restoring to the original value
> > >>> isn't re-measured.  This isn't any different than when a file is
> > >>> modified and then reverted.
> > >>>
> > >>> Instead of changing the name like this, which doesn't work for files,
> > >>> allowing duplicate measurements should be generic, based on policy.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps it is just the end of the day and I'm a bit tired, but I just
> > >> read all of the above and I have no idea what your current thoughts
> > >> are regarding this patch.
> > >
> > > Other than appending the timestamp, which is a hack, the patch is fine.
> > > Support for re-measuring an event can be upstreamed independently.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying the details related to duplicate measurement
> > detection and re-measuring.
> >
> > I will keep the timestamp for the time being, even though its a hack, as
> > it helps with re-measuring state changes in SELinux. We will add support
> > for "policy driven" re-measurement as a subsequent patch series.
>
> Once including the timestamp is upstreamed, removing it will be
> difficult, especially if different userspace applications are dependent
> on it.  Unless everyone is on board that removing the timestamp
> wouldn't be considered a regression, it cannot be upstreamed.

I'm not a fan of merging things which are known to be broken only with
the promise of fixing it later.  That goes double when the proper fix
will result in a user visible breaking change.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com