Re: [PATCH 2/6] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

[david safford <safford@watson.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 09:23 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting david safford (safford@watson.ibm.com):
> > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:42 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, david safford wrote:
> > >
> > > > These hooks were for alternate integrity modules, and since
> > > > no one else has defended them, we have to agree that they
> > > > should be replaced with direct calls.
> > >
> > > If you know of other modules which are planned to be ported to this
> > > framework, merged upstream and supported, then this would be similar to
> > > the situation when LSM was initially developed.
> > >
> > > You've previously mentioned some active projects here:
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/17/362
> > >
> > > Are there any definite commitments to push these upstream when the
> > > integrity framework is merged?
> > 
> > All of the projects listed in that posting were ones depending on
> > IMA, with no requirements for alternate modules. I do hope that there
> > will be other integrity modules in addition to the TPM oriented IMA, 
> > and I do know of several research projects in this space, but I don't 
> > know if/when any of these are planning on submission. If others are 
> > submitted, it would certainly be simple to add the hooks back in.
> 
> Too bad the main trusted knoppix site appears to be dead.  Was it
> actually making use of the templating api?
> 
> -serge

I believe they are using an older version of IMA without templating, 
but either way really shouldn't affect them.

dave