From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lennart Poettering Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [Linux-ima-user] [PATCH 2/2] main: added support for loading IMA custom policies Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:18:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20120220191804.GD360@tango.0pointer.de> References: <4F3BDCAA.7040001@polito.it> <4F3BE763.9060704@polito.it> <4F3C8C6F.4010708@gmail.com> <4F3D06D1.7000404@polito.it> <4F3D144D.3060102@polito.it> <20120220172418.GG26356@tango.0pointer.de> <4F4299C2.5040205@polito.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F4299C2.5040205@polito.it> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Roberto Sassu Cc: Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri , initramfs@vger.kernel.org, systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-ima-user@lists.sourceforge.net, Michael Cassaniti , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, harald@redhat.com, ramunno@polito.it On Mon, 20.02.12 20:06, Roberto Sassu (roberto.sassu@polito.it) wrote: > >We moved SELinux loading out of the initrd into systemd, in order to > >support fully featured initrd-less boots. I don't think we should reopen > >this problem set by having IMA in the initrd. I believe IMA should be > >treated pretty much exactly like SELinux here: the policy should be > >loaded from PID1 and it needs to be a compile time option, and it needs > >a kernel cmdline option to disable it (i.e. like selinux=0). > > > > If the SELinux module in dracut is to be considered definitively broken > probably also the IMA module should be removed, because it will not be > possible to load policies with LSM rules. But i don't know how this > feature can be supported by distributions without Systemd installed. Well, if the rumours I keep hearing are true Ubuntu might join the systemd camp too after their LTS release. Maybe the supporting non-systemd systems issues solves itself by that for you? > Regarding the kernel option, actually there is no a specific parameter > to disable IMA. However, it can be introduced in the patches proposed > by Mimi Zohar about the 'ima-appraisal' feature. This can allow to > disable IMA or to put it in permissive/enforce mode as it happens for > example in SELinux. Whether there is a kernel option to enable/disable IMA will not stop these patches from getting into systemd. But I am quite sure they will stop IMA from getting any wider coverage in the mainstream distributions (if you care for that). Oh, and one more thing: it matters to me that this doesn't break my build. So it needs to allow me booting when enabled in configure, but without any IMA policy around. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.