linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

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: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2008060949410.20084@namei.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 09:51:57 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        snitzer@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com, agk@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
        corbet@....net, nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, serge@...lyn.com,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        axboe@...nel.dk, mdsakib@...rosoft.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eparis@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        jaskarankhurana@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement
 LSM (IPE)

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote:

> If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need
> for fs-verity.   Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems,
> which makes validating file integrity so much easier.  From the
> beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in
> the measurement list.  (I thought someone signed on to add that support
> to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.)
> 
> Going forward I see a lot of what we've accomplished being incorporated
> into the filesystems.  When IMA will be limited to defining a system
> wide policy, I'll have completed my job.

What are your thoughts on IPE being a standalone LSM? Would you prefer to 
see its functionality integrated into IMA?