linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/10] KEYS: Measure keys when they are created or updated

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: <1573578526.17949.47.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:08:46 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        dhowells@...hat.com, matthewgarrett@...gle.com, sashal@...nel.org,
        jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/10] KEYS: Measure keys when they are created or
 updated

On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 11:41 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 11/11/2019 11:32 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 
> Hi Mimi,
> 
> > Problem Statement:

The above line isn't needed.

> > 
> > Keys created or updated in the system are currently not being measured.
> > 
> > This change aims to address measuring keys created or updated
> > in the system:
> > 
> >    => Patches #1 through #5 update IMA policy functions to handle
> >       measurement of keys based on configured IMA policy.
> > 
> >    => Patches #6 and #7 add IMA hook for measuring keys and the call
> >       to the IMA hook from key_create_or_update function.
> >       Keys are processed immediately - no support for
> >       deferred processing.
> > 
> >    => Patches #8 through #10 add support for queuing keys if
> >       custom IMA policies have not been applied yet and process
> >       the queued keys when custom IMA policies are applied.
> 
> I was wondering if it'd be better to split this patch set into two sets:
> 
> 1st set including the patches for measuring keys without queuing support 
> (Patches #1 through #7)

I've commented on patches 1 - 4.  There's still so much wrong with
this patch set.  Limiting the scope of the patch set sounds like
really a good idea. 

Mimi

> 
> 2nd set including the patches that add queuing support (Patches #8 
> through #10).