From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@infradead.org (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 23:38:34 -0700 Subject: [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14 In-Reply-To: <1505052162.3224.64.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170908070943.GA26549@infradead.org> <20170910081047.GA19533@infradead.org> <1505052162.3224.64.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20170911063834.GB10489@infradead.org> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:02:42AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > We need to differentiate between policies and x509 certificates. ?In > the policy case, they need to be signed and appraised, while in the > x509 certificate case, the certificate itself is signed so the file > doesn't need to be signed or verified. How about you take this sketch over - I don't know much about the integrity code, and it seems like you actually wrote kernel_read_file_from_path as well - so you're at least 3 times as qualified as I am in this area.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html