[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1576022598.4579.50.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:03:18 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@...cle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@...gle.com,
sashal@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] IMA: Check IMA policy flag
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 15:29 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 12/10/19 2:42 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> > Patch descriptions aren't suppose to be written as pseudo code. Start
> > with the current status and problem description.
> >
> > For example, "process_buffer_measurement() may be called prior to IMA being initialized, which would result in a kernel panic. This patch ..."
> >
> > Mimi
>
> I'll update the patch description in this one and in the other patches
> per your comments.
>
> Are you done reviewing all the patches in this set?
>
> Other than the one code change per your comment on "[PATCH v10 5/6]"
> there are no other code changes I need to make?
> Just wanted to confirm.
>
> [PATCH v10 5/6] IMA: Add support to limit measuring keys
> => With the additional "uid" support this isn't necessarily true any
> more.
Yes, other than the code change needed for this and the patch
descriptions, it looks good. Am continuing with reviewing the other
patch set - queueing "key" measurements.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists