Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:24:08 +0200
From:   Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
CC:     <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>, <initramfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <bug-cpio@gnu.org>,
        <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, <silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com>,
        <dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com>, <takondra@cisco.com>,
        <kamensky@cisco.com>, <hpa@zytor.com>, <arnd@arndb.de>,
        <rob@landley.net>, <james.w.mcmechan@gmail.com>,
        <niveditas98@gmail.com>, Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com>,
        Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] initramfs: add support for xattrs in the initial
 ram disk
Message-ID: <20220616132408.GA4018@lxhi-065>
References: <20190523121803.21638-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190523121803.21638-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

Dear Yamada-san,

On Do, Mai 23, 2019 at 02:18:00 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> This patch set aims at solving the following use case: appraise files from
> the initial ram disk. To do that, IMA checks the signature/hash from the
> security.ima xattr. Unfortunately, this use case cannot be implemented
> currently, as the CPIO format does not support xattrs.
> 
> This proposal consists in including file metadata as additional files named
> METADATA!!!, for each file added to the ram disk. The CPIO parser in the
> kernel recognizes these special files from the file name, and calls the
> appropriate parser to add metadata to the previously extracted file. It has
> been proposed to use bit 17:16 of the file mode as a way to recognize files
> with metadata, but both the kernel and the cpio tool declare the file mode
> as unsigned short.
> 
> The difference from v2, v3 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/9/230,
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/17/466) is that file metadata are stored in
> separate files instead of a single file. Given that files with metadata
> must immediately follow the files metadata will be added to, image
> generators have to be modified in this version.
> 
> The difference from v1 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/22/1182) is that
> all files have the same name. The file metadata are added to is always the
> previous one, and the image generator in user space will make sure that
> files are in the correct sequence.
> 
> The difference with another proposal
> (https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/888071/) is that xattrs can be
> included in an image without changing the image format. Files with metadata
> will appear as regular files. It will be task of the parser in the kernel
> to process them.
> 
> This patch set extends the format of data defined in patch 9/15 of the last
> proposal. It adds header version and type, so that new formats can be
> defined and arbitrary metadata types can be processed.
> 
> The changes introduced by this patch set don't cause any compatibility
> issue: kernels without the metadata parser simply extract the special files
> and don't process metadata; kernels with the metadata parser don't process
> metadata if the special files are not included in the image.
> 
> >From the kernel space perspective, backporting this functionality to older
> kernels should be very easy. It is sufficient to add two calls to the new
> function do_process_metadata() in do_copy(), and to check the file name in
> do_name(). From the user space perspective, unlike the previous version of
> the patch set, it is required to modify the image generators in order to
> include metadata as separate files.

Since this patch series most likely falls under your jurisdiction and
also given your recent commits [*] in the same area, I am curious if
there are any early signs which would prevent your final acceptance
and would potentially result in a no-Go?

Can we have an early confirmation that, upon rebasing and handling of
all the review comments, you would be willing to accept the patches?

[*] Most recent commits touching usr/gen_initramfs.sh
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7168965ec7b10b8a2c7dea1f82f1ebadf44d64ba
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=65e00e04e5aea34b256814cfa21b32e3b94a2402
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=469e87e89fd61de804bd29f6dd0380a399b567a7

Thanks,
Eugeniu.