All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
	James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
	mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
	sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:36:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1576870595.5241.83.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <589b893b-52e4-783c-0f32-608ed1cfd7f9@linux.microsoft.com>

On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 11:25 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 12/20/2019 11:01 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> Hi Mimi,
> 
> >> If the kernel is built with both CONFIG_IMA and
> >> CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE enabled then the IMA policy
> >> must be applied as a custom policy. Not providing a custom policy
> >> in the above configuration would result in asymmeteric keys being queued
> >> until a custom policy is loaded. This is by design.
> > 
> > I didn't notice the "This is by design" here, referring to the memory
> > never being freed.  "This is by design" was suppose to refer to
> > requiring a custom policy for measuring keys.
> > 
> > For now, these two patches are queued in the next-integrity-testing
> > branch, but I would appreciate your addressing not freeing the memory
> > associated with the keys, if a custom policy is not loaded.
> > 
> > Please note that I truncated the 2/2 patch description, as it repeats
> > the existing verification example in commit ("2b60c0ecedf8 IMA: Read
> > keyrings= option from the IMA policy").
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Mimi
> > 
> 
> Sure - I am fine with truncating the 2/2 patch description. Thanks for 
> doing that.
> 
> Regarding "Freeing the queued keys if custom policy is not loaded":
> 
> Shall I create a new patch set to address that and have that be reviewed 
> independent of this patch set?

If it is just a single additional patch, feel free to post it without
a cover letter.

> 
> Like you'd suggested earlier, we can wait for a certain time, after IMA 
> is initialized, and free the queue if a custom policy was not loaded.

Different types of systems vary in boot time, but perhaps a certain
amount of time after IMA is initialized would be consistent.  This
would need to work for IoT devices/sensors to servers.

Mimi 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
	James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
	mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
	sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:36:35 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1576870595.5241.83.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <589b893b-52e4-783c-0f32-608ed1cfd7f9@linux.microsoft.com>

On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 11:25 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 12/20/2019 11:01 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> Hi Mimi,
> 
> >> If the kernel is built with both CONFIG_IMA and
> >> CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE enabled then the IMA policy
> >> must be applied as a custom policy. Not providing a custom policy
> >> in the above configuration would result in asymmeteric keys being queued
> >> until a custom policy is loaded. This is by design.
> > 
> > I didn't notice the "This is by design" here, referring to the memory
> > never being freed.  "This is by design" was suppose to refer to
> > requiring a custom policy for measuring keys.
> > 
> > For now, these two patches are queued in the next-integrity-testing
> > branch, but I would appreciate your addressing not freeing the memory
> > associated with the keys, if a custom policy is not loaded.
> > 
> > Please note that I truncated the 2/2 patch description, as it repeats
> > the existing verification example in commit ("2b60c0ecedf8 IMA: Read
> > keyrings= option from the IMA policy").
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Mimi
> > 
> 
> Sure - I am fine with truncating the 2/2 patch description. Thanks for 
> doing that.
> 
> Regarding "Freeing the queued keys if custom policy is not loaded":
> 
> Shall I create a new patch set to address that and have that be reviewed 
> independent of this patch set?

If it is just a single additional patch, feel free to post it without
a cover letter.

> 
> Like you'd suggested earlier, we can wait for a certain time, after IMA 
> is initialized, and free the queue if a custom policy was not loaded.

Different types of systems vary in boot time, but perhaps a certain
amount of time after IMA is initialized would be consistent.  This
would need to work for IoT devices/sensors to servers.

Mimi 


  reply	other threads:[~2019-12-20 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-18 16:44 [PATCH v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 16:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 16:44 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 16:44   ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-19 13:11   ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-19 13:11     ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-19 16:55     ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-19 16:55       ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-20 12:53       ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-20 12:53         ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-18 16:44 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] IMA: Call workqueue functions to measure queued keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 16:44   ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-20 19:01 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys Mimi Zohar
2019-12-20 19:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-20 19:25   ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-20 19:25     ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-20 19:36     ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2019-12-20 19:36       ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-20 20:50       ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-20 20:50         ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian

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=1576870595.5241.83.camel@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=matthewgarrett@google.com \
    --cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=sashal@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.