From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:39530 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751046AbeACED0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2018 23:03:26 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w033wsZ0015211 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2018 23:03:25 -0500 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2f8gs54k04-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 23:03:25 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 04:03:23 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/1] ima: re-introduce own integrity cache lock From: Mimi Zohar To: Dave Chinner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Dmitry Kasatkin , linux-integrity , linux-security-module , Jan Kara , "Theodore Ts'o" , Chris Mason , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Kasatkin , xfs Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 23:03:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180103031621.GK5858@dastard> References: <20180103014048.GE5146@magnolia> <1514947923.3493.2.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180103031621.GK5858@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <1514952196.3493.57.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 14:16 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:52:03PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 17:40 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > [might as well cc linux-xfs] > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0200, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Could I ask FS maintainers to test IMA with this patch additionally > > > > and provide ack/tested. > > > > We tested but may be you have and some special testing. > > > > > > Super-late to this party, but unless xfstests has automated tests to > > > set up IMA on top of an existing filesystem then I most likely have no > > > idea /how/ to test IMA. I did a quick grep of xfstests git and I don't > > > see anything IMA-related. > > > > Back in June I posted a simple xfstests IMA-appraisal test (https://ma > > rc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149703820814885&w=4). > > That's a really, really basic test and it doesn't exercise the > problematic direct IO path this patch fixes problems with. nor does > it exercise the chmod path, or try to trigger deadlocks or other > conditions through all the other paths that can trigger IMA actions > and or failures (e.g. ENOSPC). IOWs, we need a lot more than a > "hello world" test to be able to verify filesystems interact with > IMA properly. e.g. how does it behave at ENOSPC? True, but for now we were looking for some basic testing - opening a file and calculating the file hash - on different filesystems, not the direct-IO path in particular.  Expanding the IMA-appraisal xfstests is high on my "todo" list. Mimi