[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhnfzipoU1NbkjQQ@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:07:42 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"revest@...omium.org" <revest@...omium.org>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] bpf-lsm: Extend interoperability with IMA
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 02:11:04PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 08:41 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@...ux.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:22 AM
> > > Hi Roberto,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 13:40 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > Extend the interoperability with IMA, to give wider flexibility for the
> > > > implementation of integrity-focused LSMs based on eBPF.
> > >
> > > I've previously requested adding eBPF module measurements and signature
> > > verification support in IMA. There seemed to be some interest, but
> > > nothing has been posted.
> >
> > Hi Mimi
> >
> > for my use case, DIGLIM eBPF, IMA integrity verification is
> > needed until the binary carrying the eBPF program is executed
> > as the init process. I've been thinking to use an appended
> > signature to overcome the limitation of lack of xattrs in the
> > initial ram disk.
>
> I would still like to see xattrs supported in the initial ram disk.
> Assuming you're still interested in pursuing it, someone would need to
> review and upstream it. Greg?
Me? How about the filesystem maintainers and developers? :)
There's a reason we never added xattrs support to ram disks, but I can't
remember why...
thanks,
gre gk-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists