[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb7a2f5b5cd22cf9231aa0fd8fdb77c729a83428.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:33:21 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
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 Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote:
> 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?
Improving the integrity subsystem would be preferred.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists