linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] IMA: add policy to support measuring critical data from kernel components

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:27:27 -0700
From:   Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com, gmazyland@...il.com
Cc:     tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com, sashal@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        nramas@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] IMA: add policy to support measuring critical data
 from kernel components



On 2020-08-17 1:43 p.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 12:31 -0700, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>> There would be several candidate kernel components suitable for IMA
>> measurement. Not all of them would be enlightened for IMA measurement.
>> Also, system administrators may not want to measure data for all of
>> them, even when they are enlightened for IMA measurements. An IMA policy
>> specific to various kernel components is needed to measure their
>> respective critical data.
>>
>> Add a new IMA policy CRITICAL_DATA+data_sources to support measuring
>> various critical kernel components. This policy would enable the
>> system administrators to limit the measurement to the components,
>> if the components are enlightened for IMA measurement.
> 
> "enlightened", really?  Please find a different term, maybe something
> like "supported".
Thanks for the feedback Mimi. Will do.
> 
> Before posting a patch set, please look at the patches line by line,
> like anyone reviewing the code needs to do.  Please minimize code
> change.   Unnecessary formatting changes are unacceptible.   For
> example, like the "#define", below, or in 3/3 the
Thanks for the feedback Mimi.
We extensively reviewed the patches internally before submitting for
upstream review.
We believed adding an extra tab was necessary so that all the previous
values were aligned with the new one - #define IMA_DATA_SOURCES.
We can certainly revert back to only IMA_DATA_SOURCES to have an extra
tab.
> "process_buffer_measurement()" change from void to int.
> 
This was also intentional, and was reviewed internally.
The feedback was we should let the consumers of
process_buffer_measurement() decide whether to use the return
value or not. With void, we are not giving them any choice.

> scripts/Lindent isn't as prevalent as it used to be, but it's still
> included in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.  Use it as a guide.
Thanks for the pointer. We'll use scripts/Lindent going forward.
> 
> Mimi
>