[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1362104227.9158.41.camel@falcor1>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:17:07 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IMA: How to manage user space signing policy with others
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:35 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:23:39PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> [..]
> > I would suggest that the ima_appraise_tcb, which is more restrictive, be
> > permitted to replace the secureboot policy.
>
> Also ima_appraise_tcb is not necessarily more restrictive. It takes
> appraises only for root user. Files for rest of users are not appraised.
Ok, good point.
> In general case of "memory locked execution of signed binary" I was
> hoping to give user a flexibility to do appraisal either for root
> or both root and non-root user.
>
> For the time being I can hardcode things only for root user but the
> moment somebody will extend functionality for non-root user, again
> we will run into the issue that ima_appraise_tcb is not superset so
> we can't allow that.
So we can agree that the 'ima_appraise_tcb' policy is more restrictive
for root owned files. So as long as the 'ima_appraise_tcb' policy
precedes the secureboot integrity policy, we should be good.
thanks,
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists