From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3175CDB482 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235068AbjJQQIi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:08:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38088 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234993AbjJQQIi (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:08:38 -0400 Received: from frasgout12.his.huawei.com (frasgout12.his.huawei.com [14.137.139.154]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8A28F1; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.229]) by frasgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4S8z5Z1hglz9xvtB; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 23:52:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.204.63.22]) by APP1 (Coremail) with SMTP id LxC2BwD3TpBfsS5lfRxmAg--.39235S2; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:08:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <6f33144c850c40e9438a6de2cf3004e223508755.camel@huaweicloud.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls From: Roberto Sassu To: Paul Moore , Mimi Zohar Cc: Casey Schaufler , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mic@digikod.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:07:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20230912205658.3432-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com> <20230912205658.3432-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <468436cf766732a3cfc55d07ad119a6ccdc815c1.camel@huaweicloud.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CM-TRANSID: LxC2BwD3TpBfsS5lfRxmAg--.39235S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Ww4DWr17JF4UXFy7Wr45Wrg_yoW8Zry7pF WkKay8KFs7Zr12kF1vvF4rC3W5Kr9YqrW3Wrn8Cr18JryFyFyYgrsrGFW29r15Grs5ta4S yF4agryUuw1vy3DanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkjb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4 vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxV AFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40E x7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x 0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lFIxGxcIEc7CjxVA2Y2ka0xkIwI1l42xK82IYc2Ij 64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x 8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1q6r43MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE 2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvE42 xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE c7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07UWE__UUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: purev21wro2thvvxqx5xdzvxpfor3voofrz/1tbiAgANBF1jj5EligAAsE X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:58 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:01 AM Roberto Sassu > wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 11:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:05 AM Roberto Sassu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, I > > > > think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY. > > > > > > > > Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly. > > > > > > I believe LSM_ID_IMA is the better option, despite "integrity" already > > > being present in Kconfig and possibly other areas. "IMA" is a > > > specific thing/LSM whereas "integrity" is a property, principle, or > > > quality. Especially as we move forward with promoting IMA as a full > > > and proper LSM, we should work towards referring to it as "IMA" and > > > not "integrity". > > > > > > If anything we should be working to support "IMA" in places where we > > > currently have "integrity" so that we can eventually deprecate > > > "integrity". > > > > Hi Paul > > > > I fully understand your argument. However, 'integrity' has been the > > word to identify the integrity subsystem since long time ago. > > > > Reducing the scope to 'ima' would create some confusion since, while > > 'ima' is associated to integrity, it would not encompass EVM. > > Using LSM_ID_IMA to reference the combination of IMA+EVM makes much > more sense to me than using LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, especially as we move > towards promoting IMA+EVM and adopting LSM hooks for integrity > verification, opening the door for other integrity focused LSMs. + Mimi, linux-integrity Ok, just to understand before posting v4, the code looks like this: +const struct lsm_id integrity_lsmid = { + .name = "integrity", + .id = LSM_ID_IMA, +}; + DEFINE_LSM(integrity) = { .name = "integrity", - .init = integrity_iintcache_init, + .init = integrity_lsm_init, .order = LSM_ORDER_LAST, }; Is it ok? Thanks Roberto