From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] security/ima: use fs method to read integrity data
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:00:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1494450047.3006.28.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170510132359.GA22549@lst.de>
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:20:41PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > Would you not want to call ->read_iter() in the NULL case
> > and have all FSs supported as today?
>
> As IMA has particular requirements on the fs (e.g. that it can
> read with i_rwsem held as seen in this patch, or useful i_version
> which only the file systems converted in this patch do), having
> an explicit opt-in seems much safer. This optional method is
> a very easy way to provide this opt-in behavior.
Without i_version support the file is measured/appraised once. ?With
i_version support it will be re-measured/appraised. As a file system
is mounted/remounted, some sort of message should be emitted
indicating whether i_version is supported. ?That does not imply that
there is no value in measuring/appraising the file only once.
With this patch, the "opt-in" behavior, is only for measurement, not
appraisal. ?For appraisal, it still enforces file hash/signature
verification, as it should, based on policy.
Christoph, could we call ->read_iter() in the NULL case as Boaz
suggested?
thanks!
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security/ima: use fs method to read integrity data
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:00:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1494450047.3006.28.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170510132359.GA22549@lst.de>
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:20:41PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > Would you not want to call ->read_iter() in the NULL case
> > and have all FSs supported as today?
>
> As IMA has particular requirements on the fs (e.g. that it can
> read with i_rwsem held as seen in this patch, or useful i_version
> which only the file systems converted in this patch do), having
> an explicit opt-in seems much safer. This optional method is
> a very easy way to provide this opt-in behavior.
Without i_version support the file is measured/appraised once. With
i_version support it will be re-measured/appraised. As a file system
is mounted/remounted, some sort of message should be emitted
indicating whether i_version is supported. That does not imply that
there is no value in measuring/appraising the file only once.
With this patch, the "opt-in" behavior, is only for measurement, not
appraisal. For appraisal, it still enforces file hash/signature
verification, as it should, based on policy.
Christoph, could we call ->read_iter() in the NULL case as Boaz
suggested?
thanks!
Mimi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-10 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-10 6:45 fix IMA deadlock Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-10 6:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-10 6:45 ` [PATCH] security/ima: use fs method to read integrity data Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-10 6:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-10 12:20 ` Boaz Harrosh
2017-05-10 12:20 ` Boaz Harrosh
2017-05-10 13:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-10 13:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-10 15:55 ` Boaz Harrosh
2017-05-10 15:55 ` Boaz Harrosh
2017-05-10 21:00 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2017-05-10 21:00 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-05-11 8:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-11 8:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-12 21:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-05-12 21:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-05-10 23:59 ` James Morris
2017-05-10 23:59 ` James Morris
2017-06-04 5:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-04 5:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-05 0:23 ` James Morris
2017-06-05 0:23 ` James Morris
2017-06-05 1:57 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-06-05 1:57 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-05-11 0:34 ` Li Kun
2017-05-11 0:34 ` Li Kun
2017-05-11 0:59 ` Al Viro
2017-05-11 0:59 ` Al Viro
2017-05-11 4:03 ` Li Kun
2017-05-11 4:03 ` Li Kun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1494450047.3006.28.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.