MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1675119451-23180-1-git-send-email-wufan@linux.microsoft.com>
 <1675119451-23180-4-git-send-email-wufan@linux.microsoft.com>
 <061df661004a06ef1e8790d48157c7ba4ecfc009.camel@huaweicloud.com> <20230210232154.GA17962@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230210232154.GA17962@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:33:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhShcgFtdxxoFX9x+QOM3Qb7xWa-AJuJGrHgaK_N8nKtzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 03/16] ipe: add evaluation loop and introduce
 'boot_verified' as a trust provider
To:     Fan Wu <wufan@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>, corbet@lwn.net,
        zohar@linux.ibm.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
        tytso@mit.edu, ebiggers@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
        agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org, eparis@redhat.com,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        roberto.sassu@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 6:21=E2=80=AFPM Fan Wu <wufan@linux.microsoft.com> =
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 04:49:44PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 14:57 -0800, Fan Wu wrote:
> > > From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>
> > >
> > > IPE must have a centralized function to evaluate incoming callers
> > > against IPE's policy. This iteration of the policy against the rules
> > > for that specific caller is known as the evaluation loop.
> >
> > Not sure if you check the properties at every access.
> >
> > >From my previous comments (also for previous versions of the patches)
> > you could evaluate the property once, by calling the respective
> > functions in the other subsystems.
> >
> > Then, you reserve space in the security blob for inodes and superblocks
> > to cache the decision. The format could be a policy sequence number, to
> > ensure that the cache is valid only for the current policy, and a bit
> > for every hook you enforce.
>
> Thanks for raising this idea. I agree that if the property evaluation
> leads to a performance issue, it will be better to cache the evaluation
> result. But for this version, all the property evaluations are simple,
> so it is just as fast as accessing a cache. Also, for the initial
> version we prefer to keep the patch as minimal as possible.

FWIW, I think that is the right decision.  Keeping the initial
submission relatively small and focused has a lot of advantages when
it comes both to review and prematurely optimizing things that might
not need optimization.

--=20
paul-moore.com