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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 12CFDC43219 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 15:48:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CE7205C9 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 15:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726958AbfEBPso (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 11:48:44 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:35792 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727348AbfEBPsn (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 11:48:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x42FmEaD111182 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:48:42 -0400 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2s81jgwn3m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 02 May 2019 11:48:41 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 2 May 2019 16:48:38 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 2 May 2019 16:48:34 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x42FmX7O47448276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 May 2019 15:48:33 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC26A404D; Thu, 2 May 2019 15:48:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E117A4051; Thu, 2 May 2019 15:48:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.95.175]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 May 2019 15:48:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure From: Mimi Zohar To: prakhar srivastava Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module , Paul Moore , Casey Schaufler , John Johansen Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 11:48:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1555978681.4914.305.camel@linux.ibm.com> References: <1555978681.4914.305.camel@linux.ibm.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: 19050215-0012-0000-0000-000003179DCD X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19050215-0013-0000-0000-000021500DB5 Message-Id: <1556812101.4134.28.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-02_09:,, 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=933 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905020105 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey] On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > [Cc'ing LSM mailing list] > > On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote: > > > 2) Adding a LSM hook > > We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA. > > Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario? > > That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am > > neutral about this. > > As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the > kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log > the boot command line hash?  Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the > boot command line.  Should this be an LSM hook? >From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line? Mimi