From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: sashal@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IMA: Turn IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS off by default
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:02:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1579723379.5182.130.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac6c559e-2d68-afcb-d316-6ac49a570831@linux.microsoft.com>
On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 12:38 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 1/21/2020 11:52 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> >> - really small devices/sensors being able to queue certificates
> >
> > seems like the answer to this one would be don't queue. I realise it's
> > after the submit design, but what about measuring when the key is added
> > if there's a policy otherwise measure the keyring when the policy is
> > added ... that way no queueing.
>
> Without the "deferred key processing" changes, only keys added at
> runtime were measured (if policy permitted).
>
> "deferred key processing" enabled queuing keys added early in the boot
> process and measured them when the policy is loaded.
>
> We can make this (the queuing) optional through a config, but leave the
> runtime key measurement auto-enabled (as is the config
> IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS now).
Thanks, Lakshmi. This requires moving the code around. Instead of
doing this on the current code base, I suggest posting a v9 version of
the entire "IMA: Deferred measurement of keys".
I suggest making the switch from spinlock to mutex, as you had it
originally, before posting v9. The commit history will then be a lot
cleaner.
thanks,
Mimi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-22 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-21 17:13 [PATCH] IMA: Turn IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS off by default Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2020-01-21 17:34 ` James Bottomley
2020-01-21 18:00 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2020-01-21 19:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2020-01-21 19:52 ` James Bottomley
2020-01-21 20:38 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2020-01-22 20:02 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2020-01-22 20:05 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2020-01-22 20:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2020-01-22 12:23 ` Mimi Zohar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1579723379.5182.130.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).