Re: [PATCH v19 15/20] fsverity: expose verified fsverity built-in signatures to LSMs

[Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>]

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 04:54:37PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:06 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:46:57PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 4:46 PM Fan Wu <wufan@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch enhances fsverity's capabilities to support both integrity and
> > > > authenticity protection by introducing the exposure of built-in
> > > > signatures through a new LSM hook. This functionality allows LSMs,
> > > > e.g. IPE, to enforce policies based on the authenticity and integrity of
> > > > files, specifically focusing on built-in fsverity signatures. It enables
> > > > a policy enforcement layer within LSMs for fsverity, offering granular
> > > > control over the usage of authenticity claims. For instance, a policy
> > > > could be established to permit the execution of all files with verified
> > > > built-in fsverity signatures while restricting kernel module loading
> > > > from specified fsverity files via fsverity digests.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Eric, can you give this patch in particular a look to make sure you
> > > are okay with everything?  I believe Fan has addressed all of your
> > > previous comments and it would be nice to have your Ack/Review tag if
> > > you are okay with the current revision.
> >
> > Sorry, I've just gotten a bit tired of finding so many basic issues in this
> > patchset even after years of revisions.
> >
> > This patch in particular is finally looking better.  There are a couple issues
> > that I still see.  (BTW, you're welcome to review it too to help find these
> > things, given that you seem to have an interest in getting this landed...):
> 
> I too have been reviewing this patchset across multiple years and have
> worked with Fan to fix locking issues, parsing issues, the initramfs
> approach, etc.  

Sure, but none of the patches actually have your Reviewed-by.

> My interest in getting this landed is simply a
> combination of fulfilling my role as LSM maintainer as well as being
> Fan's coworker.  While I realize you don't work with Fan, you are
> listed as the fs-verity maintainer and as such I've been looking to
> you to help review and authorize the fs-verity related code.  If you
> are too busy, frustrated, or <fill in the blank> to continue reviewing
> this patchset it would be helpful if you could identify an authorized
> fs-verity reviewer.  I don't see any besides you and Ted listed in the
> MAINTAINERS file, but perhaps the fs-verity entry is dated.
> 
> Regardless, I appreciate your time and feedback thus far and I'm sure
> Fan does as well.

Maintainers are expected to do reviews and acks, but not to the extent of
extensive hand-holding of a half-baked submission.

- Eric