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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3CBC433E0 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CC4D204EA for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:36:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8CC4D204EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-273-ADCFlwnnOAe1aleQuHFmog-1; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:36:43 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ADCFlwnnOAe1aleQuHFmog-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EE37108C313; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFAA95DA36; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7119693C; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 077HWFui016129 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:32:15 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id A12A4208DD81; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast02.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA23208DD80 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E868007A4 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-104-8wZ2FwElNdOCchj52lohLw-1; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:32:08 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8wZ2FwElNdOCchj52lohLw-1 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 077HW49j185777; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:32:07 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32repj1ges-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:32:07 -0400 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 077HW4kk185730; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:32:06 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32repj1g73-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:32:06 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 077HVYj4008226; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:31:34 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32nyyd3e91-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 17:31:34 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 077HVVF530343660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:31:31 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFE252050; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:31:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-f45666cc-3089-11b2-a85c-c57d1a57929f.ibm.com (unknown [9.160.122.187]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004F55204F; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:31:27 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4a764c86a824a4b931dd7f130ce7afce7df140e4.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) From: Mimi Zohar To: James Morris Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20200728213614.586312-1-deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com> <20200802115545.GA1162@bug> <20200802140300.GA2975990@sasha-vm> <20200802143143.GB20261@amd> <1596386606.4087.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1596639689.3457.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-07_15:2020-08-06, 2020-08-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008070120 X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false; X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:36:37 -0400 Cc: snitzer@redhat.com, Deven Bowers , James Bottomley , dm-devel@redhat.com, tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, Pavel Machek , agk@redhat.com, Sasha Levin , corbet@lwn.net, nramas@linux.microsoft.com, serge@hallyn.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, jannh@google.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, axboe@kernel.dk, mdsakib@microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 02:41 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > > > > which makes validating file integrity so much easier. From the > > > > beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in > > > > the measurement list. (I thought someone signed on to add that support > > > > to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.) > > > > > > > > Going forward I see a lot of what we've accomplished being incorporated > > > > into the filesystems. When IMA will be limited to defining a system > > > > wide policy, I'll have completed my job. > > > > > > What are your thoughts on IPE being a standalone LSM? Would you prefer to > > > see its functionality integrated into IMA? > > > > Improving the integrity subsystem would be preferred. > > > > Are you planning to attend Plumbers? Perhaps we could propose a BoF > session on this topic. That sounds like a good idea. Mimi -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit