[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1582832289.10443.298.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:38:09 -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 15:36 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 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.
After discussing this some more with Nayna, the new Kconfig indicates
that the architecture defines the arch_ima_get_secureboot() and
arch_get_ima_policy() functions, but doesn't automatically enable
IMA_ARCH_POLICY. The decision to enable IMA_ARCH_POLICY is left up to
whoever is building the kernel. The patch, at least this aspect of
it, is correct.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists