linux-kernel - Re: IMA + O_DIRECT (Re: [PATCH 0/1] fix IMA + Apparmor kernel panic)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <22172.1399666028@jrobl>
Date:	Sat, 10 May 2014 05:07:08 +0900
From:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@...il.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@...sung.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	eparis@...hat.com, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IMA + O_DIRECT (Re: [PATCH 0/1] fix IMA + Apparmor kernel panic)


Mimi Zohar:
> I assume so, as there wasn't any comment.  As a temporary fix, would it
> make sense not to measure/appraise/audit files opened with the direct-io
> flag based policy?  Define a new IMA policy option 'directio'.  A sample
> rule would look like:  
>
> dont_appraise bprm_check directio fsuuid=... 

I prefer such approach or anything addressing in IMA only, so it makes
sense.


J. R. Okajima
--
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/