Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-1830-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 22:18:31 -0500
Message-ID: <d54ca249c3071522218c7ba7b4984bab@paul-moore.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 
Content-Disposition: inline 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, kolga@netapp.com, Dai.Ngo@oracle.com, tom@talpey.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, zohar@linux.ibm.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, eparis@parisplace.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com, shuah@kernel.org, mic@digikod.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/25] security: Move IMA and EVM to the LSM
 infrastructure
References: <20240115181809.885385-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240115181809.885385-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>

On Jan 15, 2024 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> 
> IMA and EVM are not effectively LSMs, especially due to the fact that in
> the past they could not provide a security blob while there is another LSM
> active.
> 
> That changed in the recent years, the LSM stacking feature now makes it
> possible to stack together multiple LSMs, and allows them to provide a
> security blob for most kernel objects. While the LSM stacking feature has
> some limitations being worked out, it is already suitable to make IMA and
> EVM as LSMs.
> 
> The main purpose of this patch set is to remove IMA and EVM function calls,
> hardcoded in the LSM infrastructure and other places in the kernel, and to
> register them as LSM hook implementations, so that those functions are
> called by the LSM infrastructure like other regular LSMs.

Thanks Roberto, this is looking good.  I appreciate all the work you've
put into making this happen; when I first mentioned this idea I figured
it would be something that would happen much farther into the future, I
wasn't expecting to see you pick this up and put in the work to make it
happen - thank you.

I had some pretty minor comments but I think the only thing I saw that
I think needs a change/addition is a comment in the Makefile regarding
the IMA/EVM ordering; take a look and let me know what you think.

There are also a few patches in the patchset that don't have an
ACK/review tag from Mimi, although now that you are co-maininting IMA/EVM
with Mimi I don't know if that matters.  If the two of you can let me
know how you want me to handle LSM patches that are IMA/EVM related I
would appreciate it (two ACKs, one or other, something else?).

Once you add a Makefile commane and we sort out the IMA/EVM approval
process I think we're good to get this into linux-next.  A while back
Mimi and I had a chat offline and if I recall everything correctly she
preferred that I take this patchset via the LSM tree.  I don't have a
problem with that, and to be honest I would probably prefer
that too, but I wanted to check with everyone that is still the case.
Just in case, I've added my ACKs/reviews to this patchset in case this
needs to be merged via the integrity tree.

--
paul-moore.com