[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e81b761c-9133-a432-4d06-3cfe57e29e4b@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 09:26:53 +0200
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, <dmitry.kasatkin@...wei.com>,
<mjg59@...gle.com>
CC: <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN EVM status
On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@
>> Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" }
>> default: "enforce"
>>
>> + ima_appraise_req_evm
>> + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests.
>
> As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command
> line options as possible. Is there a reason for not extending
> "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"?
ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which
probably is done when the system is in production.
Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n?
Thanks
Roberto
--
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
Managing Director: Bo PENG, Jian LI, Yanli SHI
Powered by blists - more mailing lists