[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7af61ebe-28a8-799c-fe47-d72f247494ed@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 09:28:57 -0700
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
prakhar srivastava <prsriva02@...il.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
On 5/2/2019 8:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
>>
>> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Adding a LSM hook
>>> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
>>> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
>>> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
>>> neutral about this.
>> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
>> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
>> the boot command line hash?????Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
>> boot command line. ??Should this be an LSM hook?
> From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
I can imagine an LSM that cares about the command line,
but I don't have interest in it for any work I have in progress.
> Mimi
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists