Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230912205658.3432-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
 <20230912205658.3432-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <CAHC9VhRcbp3iWQwL7FTUrcU1C3OsZ413Nbq+17oTwW7hZ7XvBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhSqY5+DR-jXprrftb1=CzDvhTh0Ep66A16RMd4L7W7TYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae39864947debbc7c460db478b8abe1c147b7d5c.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <CAHC9VhRQ7xpeSX7b3VZfzQ15noJ8mgauNMuHWo_n3hMgsYMAfQ@mail.gmail.com> <468436cf766732a3cfc55d07ad119a6ccdc815c1.camel@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <468436cf766732a3cfc55d07ad119a6ccdc815c1.camel@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:58:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTjHT-DGKu0=cZPVb=+kMwmbPdr8HiVWJq-yzaDiYk_SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mic@digikod.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:01=E2=80=AFAM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 11:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, =
I
> > > think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY.
> > >
> > > Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly.
> >
> > I believe LSM_ID_IMA is the better option, despite "integrity" already
> > being present in Kconfig and possibly other areas.  "IMA" is a
> > specific thing/LSM whereas "integrity" is a property, principle, or
> > quality.  Especially as we move forward with promoting IMA as a full
> > and proper LSM, we should work towards referring to it as "IMA" and
> > not "integrity".
> >
> > If anything we should be working to support "IMA" in places where we
> > currently have "integrity" so that we can eventually deprecate
> > "integrity".
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I fully understand your argument. However, 'integrity' has been the
> word to identify the integrity subsystem since long time ago.
>
> Reducing the scope to 'ima' would create some confusion since, while
> 'ima' is associated to integrity, it would not encompass EVM.

Using LSM_ID_IMA to reference the combination of IMA+EVM makes much
more sense to me than using LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, especially as we move
towards promoting IMA+EVM and adopting LSM hooks for integrity
verification, opening the door for other integrity focused LSMs.

--=20
paul-moore.com