From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:42876 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966216AbdKRXXk (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:23:40 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vAINJ7xd042416 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:23:39 -0500 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2eak5jqdaw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:23:39 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 23:23:38 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/15] ima: add parser of digest lists metadata From: Mimi Zohar To: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Roberto Sassu Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:23:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171118042030.GA13456@mail.hallyn.com> References: <20171107103710.10883-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20171107103710.10883-7-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20171118042030.GA13456@mail.hallyn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1511047410.5920.111.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Serge, On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 22:20 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > from a predefined position (/etc/ima/digest_lists/metadata), when rootfs > > becomes available. Digest lists must be loaded before IMA appraisal is in > > enforcing mode. > > I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but this seems weird to me. > Why read it from a file on disk instead of accepting it through say > a securityfile write? Assuming that the concept of a white list is something we want to support, then at minimum the list needs to be signed and verified. Instead of defining a new Kconfig pathname option, a securityfs file could read it, like the IMA policy. Mimi