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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] selinux: include a consumer of the new IMA
 critical data hook
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc:     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
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>
 <f42d49d2e876379c0ef6e31a34027be95ffb1375.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <e883298b-1027-2a58-dcf8-fc940ebc27ff@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <507ebab8-828b-8b44-45be-2dbff3406b72@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:21:46 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e883298b-1027-2a58-dcf8-fc940ebc27ff@linux.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/14/21 9:48 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 1/14/21 8:50 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 11:44 -0500, Mimi Zohar 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.
>>
>> Feel free to just re-post just this one patch.? Otherwise the patch set
>> looks good.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
> 
> Sounds good Mimi - I will remove the timestamp and re-post the selinux 
> patch.
> 

I have removed the timestamp in the event name and have posted the 
selinux patch alone.

Thanks a lot for reviewing the changes.

  -lakshmi