All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <1517100440.29187.120.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 782b484..80a8d66 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -1,20 +1,20 @@
 On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 18:51 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
 
 > > It would be nice to be able to define policies that limit testing to a
-> > specific filesystem/device.  Without being able to limit IMA-appraisal 
+> > specific filesystem/device.  Without being able to limit IMA-appraisal 
 > > testing to specific devices, things might stop working rather quickly.
 > Not sure how to define it, I need to study the specification. Or can
 > you be more specific?
 
 These tests are for the IMA-measurement aspect only, not IMA-
-appraisal.  Adding measurements to the measurement list won't cause
+appraisal.  Adding measurements to the measurement list won't cause
 the system to stop working, unless keys are sealed to a particular TPM
-PCR value.  Nobody is or should be sealing keys to PCR-10, since the
+PCR value.  Nobody is or should be sealing keys to PCR-10, since the
 ordering of the measurements is non deterministic.
 
 As we add IMA-appraisal tests requiring files to be signed, things
 will fail if either the public key isn't on the IMA keyring or the
-file isn't properly signed.  For this reason, limiting file IMA-
+file isn't properly signed.  For this reason, limiting file IMA-
 appraisal tests to a particular filesystem simplifies testing.
 
 > BTW I suppose that kernel code supports both TPM 2.0 and the old 1.2.
@@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ Yes, Jarkko added TPM 2.0 support, including IMA support.
 > > > > Originally IMA allowed a builtin policy to be replaced with a custom
 > > > > policy, by simply cat'ing a file into the securityfs IMA policy file.
 > > > > Currently, if new rules can be added to the custom policy (Kconfig
-> > > > IMA_WRITE_POLICY enabled), the policy file must be signed.  Similarly,
+> > > > IMA_WRITE_POLICY enabled), the policy file must be signed.  Similarly,
 > > > > if the builtin "secure-boot" policy is defined on the boot command
-> > > > line, the custom policy must be signed.  Test "ima01 ima_policy.sh"
+> > > > line, the custom policy must be signed.  Test "ima01 ima_policy.sh"
 > > > > should first detect if the policy must be signed, before running the
 > > > > tests.
 > 
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Yes, Jarkko added TPM 2.0 support, including IMA support.
 > security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c which handles IMA sysfs doesn't have this functionality.
 > Is it deliberate (security reason), that it's not exported to users?
 
-This isn't really an IMA issue, but a TPM one.  The TPM device driver
+This isn't really an IMA issue, but a TPM one.  The TPM device driver
 would need to export this information.
 
 Mimi
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 346bdf7..a077744 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -4,32 +4,28 @@
  "ref\01516919365.6513.72.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
  "ref\020180126175110.boaepz6dqe3uojq6@dell5510\0"
  "From\0Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] IMA: Rewrite tests into new API + fixes\0"
+ "Subject\0[LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/2] IMA: Rewrite tests into new API + fixes\0"
  "Date\0Sat, 27 Jan 2018 19:47:20 -0500\0"
- "To\0Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>\0"
- "Cc\0ltp@lists.linux.it"
-  Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com>
-  linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
- " Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@polito.it>\0"
+ "To\0ltp@lists.linux.it\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 18:51 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:\n"
  "\n"
  "> > It would be nice to be able to define policies that limit testing to a\n"
- "> > specific filesystem/device.  Without being able to limit IMA-appraisal \n"
+ "> > specific filesystem/device. \302\240Without being able to limit IMA-appraisal \n"
  "> > testing to specific devices, things might stop working rather quickly.\n"
  "> Not sure how to define it, I need to study the specification. Or can\n"
  "> you be more specific?\n"
  "\n"
  "These tests are for the IMA-measurement aspect only, not IMA-\n"
- "appraisal.  Adding measurements to the measurement list won't cause\n"
+ "appraisal. \302\240Adding measurements to the measurement list won't cause\n"
  "the system to stop working, unless keys are sealed to a particular TPM\n"
- "PCR value.  Nobody is or should be sealing keys to PCR-10, since the\n"
+ "PCR value. \302\240Nobody is or should be sealing keys to PCR-10, since the\n"
  "ordering of the measurements is non deterministic.\n"
  "\n"
  "As we add IMA-appraisal tests requiring files to be signed, things\n"
  "will fail if either the public key isn't on the IMA keyring or the\n"
- "file isn't properly signed.  For this reason, limiting file IMA-\n"
+ "file isn't properly signed. \302\240For this reason, limiting file IMA-\n"
  "appraisal tests to a particular filesystem simplifies testing.\n"
  "\n"
  "> BTW I suppose that kernel code supports both TPM 2.0 and the old 1.2.\n"
@@ -39,9 +35,9 @@
  "> > > > Originally IMA allowed a builtin policy to be replaced with a custom\n"
  "> > > > policy, by simply cat'ing a file into the securityfs IMA policy file.\n"
  "> > > > Currently, if new rules can be added to the custom policy (Kconfig\n"
- "> > > > IMA_WRITE_POLICY enabled), the policy file must be signed.  Similarly,\n"
+ "> > > > IMA_WRITE_POLICY enabled), the policy file must be signed. \302\240Similarly,\n"
  "> > > > if the builtin \"secure-boot\" policy is defined on the boot command\n"
- "> > > > line, the custom policy must be signed.  Test \"ima01 ima_policy.sh\"\n"
+ "> > > > line, the custom policy must be signed. \302\240Test \"ima01 ima_policy.sh\"\n"
  "> > > > should first detect if the policy must be signed, before running the\n"
  "> > > > tests.\n"
  "> \n"
@@ -53,9 +49,9 @@
  "> security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c which handles IMA sysfs doesn't have this functionality.\n"
  "> Is it deliberate (security reason), that it's not exported to users?\n"
  "\n"
- "This isn't really an IMA issue, but a TPM one.  The TPM device driver\n"
+ "This isn't really an IMA issue, but a TPM one. \302\240The TPM device driver\n"
  "would need to export this information.\n"
  "\n"
  Mimi
 
-a6dd8d636bbc7b995e7f658c15add10851f548e1c8fe170b129ecb82211c24f3
+05c0b06f34d6f898594948b0e87acd1e7ea9d01f4476e21e9a6811ee75e40e83

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.