Re: [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal

Paul Moore
2023-08-31T17:57:14Z

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:47 PM Dr. Greg <greg@enjellic.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 07:22:27PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:07???PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 18:23 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:21???PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:50???PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 16:47 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:25???PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

...

> > Assuming Sush and Tushar rework the document to clarify the
> > motivation/purpose for the work, as you suggested earlier, I'm
> > assuming we can revisit this problem and solutions?
>
> IMA will obviously go, with our blessings, in its own direction.
>
> I would only call out, as I indicated in my reply to Ken Goldman, that
> our 20+ year old integrity and attestation architectures and models
> are now arguably challenged, given emerging technologies and their
> requirements for integrity and confidentiality.
>
> This thread highlights a lot of the issues that caused us to bring
> TSEM to the table ...

It would be helpful if you could refrain from hijacking barely
tangentially related threads as a marketing pitch for TSEM.

Everyone is welcome, and encouraged (!), to join the upstream
discussion threads, especially when one has something relevant to
contribute which hasn't been previously discussed. However, when
every other contribution an individual makes follows the pattern of
"we could solve all of this if we only had feature 'X' which I
helpfully posted here <lore link>" then those contributions grow very
tiring and I tend to start ignoring that individual.

--
paul-moore.com