[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1582749379.10443.246.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:36:19 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Philipp Rudo <prudo@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: add a new CONFIG for loading arch-specific policies
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 11:21 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Hi Nayna,
>
> > +
> > +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT
> > + bool
> > + depends on IMA
> > + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY
> > + default n
> > + help
> > + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or
> > + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies.
> >
>
> Why is the default for this new config "n"?
> Is there any reason to not turn on this config if both IMA and
> IMA_ARCH_POLICY are set to y?
Good catch. Having "IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT" depend on
"IMA_ARCH_POLICY" doesn't make sense. "IMA_ARCH_POLICY" needs to be
selected.
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists