[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhynZby+AyA/PuBU@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:43:49 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.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 Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:12:35AM +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:08 AM
> > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@...ux.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 8:11 PM
> > > 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?
> >
> > I could revise this work. However, since appended signatures
> > would work too, I would propose to extend this appraisal
> > mode to executables, if it is fine for you.
>
> Regarding this patch set, I kindly ask if you could accept it,
> after I make the changes suggested.
>
> The changes are simple, and waiting another kernel cycle
> seems too long.
3 months is not a long time, get it right first, there is no deadline
here.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists