[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <910f7fe3864925d1052f5f35785dd19ed1505fe6.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 08:55:09 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
"mjg59@...gle.com" <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc: "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Silviu Vlasceanu <Silviu.Vlasceanu@...wei.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] evm: Set IMA_CHANGE_XATTR/ATTR bit if
EVM_ALLOW_METADATA_WRITES is set
> > > I think it is better to set a flag, maybe a new one, directly in EVM, to notify
> > > the integrity subsystem that iint->evm_status is no longer valid.
> > >
> > > If the EVM flag is set, IMA would reset the appraisal flags, as it uses
> > > iint->evm_status for appraisal. We can consider to reset also the measure
> > > flags when we have a template that includes file metadata.
> >
> > When would IMA read the EVM flag? Who would reset the flag? At what
> > point would it be reset? Just as EVM shouldn't be resetting the IMA
> > flag, IMA shouldn't be resetting the EVM flag.
>
> IMA would read the flag in process_measurement() and behave similarly
> to when it processes IMA_CHANGE_ATTR. The flag would be reset by
> evm_verify_hmac().
Sounds good.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists