[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230316221036.GA22567@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 15:10:36 -0700
From: Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
serge@...lyn.com, tytso@....edu, ebiggers@...nel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org,
eparis@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-audit@...hat.com,
roberto.sassu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 11/16] ipe: add support for dm-verity as a trust
provider
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> If you had both IPE and dm-verity enabled in your kernel build, is
> there ever a case where you wouldn't want IPE_PROP_DM_VERITY? I
> suspect you can just have IPE and dm-verity select IPE_PROP_DM_VERITY
> and not bother the user/admin with the additional Kconfig knob.
>
Sorry for the late reply, I was relocating to a new country and it
took me some time to settle down.
I have read your comments and I will try to answer some questions
that I can answer right now. For the remaining questions, I need more
time to get more context and information. I will get back to you
as soon as possible.
For this one I agree just have IPE and dm-verity select IPE_PROP_DM_VERITY
is better, I will update this in the next version.
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists