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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 5F06BC10F14 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC2520700 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729542AbfJCPtb (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:49:31 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46050 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727302AbfJCPtb (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:49:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x93FgvC4055309 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:49:30 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vdj9c4hf7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 11:49:28 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 16:49:23 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 3 Oct 2019 16:49:21 +0100 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x93FnKvn51642426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:49:20 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBA75204F; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:49:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.234.155]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435D852050; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:49:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: ima_tpm_chip is queried and saved only at IMA init, but never later From: Mimi Zohar To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , James Bottomley , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 11:49:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1569364624.5364.23.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19100315-0016-0000-0000-000002B3BA9A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19100315-0017-0000-0000-00003314C5C4 Message-Id: <1570117759.5046.4.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-03_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=666 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910030143 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 08:40 -0700, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 9/24/19 3:37 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 15:31 -0700, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > There has been some discussion that we could, for UEFI systems, use the > > UEFI runtime drivers for the TPM until the actual driver is inserted > > but no-one's looked into doing that. > > > > James > > Can IMA take a dependency on TPM and postpone IMA initialization until a > TPM device shows up? IMA is already on the late_initcall(), waiting for the TPM initialization to complete.  How would you define a TPM dependency? Mimi > > Has anyone looked into this? > > Thanks, > -lakshmi > >