linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls

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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:07:56 +0200
From:   Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        john.johansen@...onical.com, penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
        stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, mic@...ikod.net,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls

On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:58 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:01 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 11:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:05 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, I
> > > > think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY.
> > > > 
> > > > Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly.
> > > 
> > > I believe LSM_ID_IMA is the better option, despite "integrity" already
> > > being present in Kconfig and possibly other areas.  "IMA" is a
> > > specific thing/LSM whereas "integrity" is a property, principle, or
> > > quality.  Especially as we move forward with promoting IMA as a full
> > > and proper LSM, we should work towards referring to it as "IMA" and
> > > not "integrity".
> > > 
> > > If anything we should be working to support "IMA" in places where we
> > > currently have "integrity" so that we can eventually deprecate
> > > "integrity".
> > 
> > Hi Paul
> > 
> > I fully understand your argument. However, 'integrity' has been the
> > word to identify the integrity subsystem since long time ago.
> > 
> > Reducing the scope to 'ima' would create some confusion since, while
> > 'ima' is associated to integrity, it would not encompass EVM.
> 
> Using LSM_ID_IMA to reference the combination of IMA+EVM makes much
> more sense to me than using LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, especially as we move
> towards promoting IMA+EVM and adopting LSM hooks for integrity
> verification, opening the door for other integrity focused LSMs.

+ Mimi, linux-integrity

Ok, just to understand before posting v4, the code looks like this:

+const struct lsm_id integrity_lsmid = {
+	.name = "integrity",
+	.id = LSM_ID_IMA,
+};
+
 DEFINE_LSM(integrity) = {
 	.name = "integrity",
-	.init = integrity_iintcache_init,
+	.init = integrity_lsm_init,
 	.order = LSM_ORDER_LAST,
 };
 
Is it ok?

Thanks

Roberto