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 Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36894C28B28 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDFC3CA483 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:20:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6F33CA0D3 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:20:15 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-4.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A328100060D for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:20:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA95F1F394; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:20:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1741792812; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GcMVA5ZO1l10kP+Eord7+h3K124A5Tk/yMwZXBFvKMs=; b=VEZHRH2QkGylcjeE0+OzK9uTLJaZN84UVtYFOQco9HN+9jpiSHtON7UtKtkmvn5hFxBwhH 7NBcIXnVwvS5jCxF6K/Mx1F9w0DJWwualr7ILtRhZQPZ973CAkv6grqNevq7knUMUl3r0Z UdRHIhFx/vavbeyeQW030pqOW3T2JYw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1741792812; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GcMVA5ZO1l10kP+Eord7+h3K124A5Tk/yMwZXBFvKMs=; b=dEW2yAKhhp8mDfHq+Q6KEwuPi6e0uKrvhoEheyrYhwI35402Y4c5F104j67o32u1SAr5T7 Bag3OaHllrzUyqDQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1741792811; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GcMVA5ZO1l10kP+Eord7+h3K124A5Tk/yMwZXBFvKMs=; b=wFfpds42mEC6iLucPCw0RCH74APDo3w+Jh/jWcHfVHwlGpSRU/50okSy5XSy5J+MEt32e9 iz/M3zUm1rdeldsvAAGi6d4zwkpdubuuL0h5TDZmW5OJuIvs2gVFvMhJ+MejV1agd94pg8 kBcdQJQMKTOOWt2SmwK3fsl1smar2TI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1741792811; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GcMVA5ZO1l10kP+Eord7+h3K124A5Tk/yMwZXBFvKMs=; b=TB52b5WuMeNZOSZuvCcLbQRp0SrowfyXxhQSlLLwhkKNWQ5i/cUQHEKH1gmTbiVWI6fK0K gau3705rWONRmUCA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91D9132CB; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:20:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id j2HKMCum0WcdCgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:20:11 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:20:06 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Mimi Zohar Message-ID: <20250312152006.GA130182@pevik> References: <20250114113239.611278-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20250307102429.GA272497@pevik> <88e87da5b2d5d731e6ad4e2b4043d39e4221684d.camel@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88e87da5b2d5d731e6ad4e2b4043d39e4221684d.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.50 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH] IMA: Remove evm_overlay.sh X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: Ignaz Forster , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Mimi, Ignaz, > On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 11:24 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote: > > Hi Mimi, Ignaz, > > > Proof of concept, it was never fixed in the kernel. > > > Instead we should have some basic EVM tests. > > gently ping. Is evm_overlay.sh test useful for you? > > Otherwise I'll delete it. > Requiring the "ima_policy=appraise_tcb" default policy to run the tests limits > its usefulness. Perhaps REQUIRED_POLICY_CONTENT could be defined. I'll let you > know. For now, please don't remove the test. Sure, I'll keep the test if you want. Also adding REQUIRED_POLICY_CONTENT would help. But the reason why I wanted to delete the test is the fact, that it's a proof of concept that 1) It's a reproducer for patchset which haven't been fixed. 2) It requires test setup first "ima_policy=tcb|appraise_tcb ima_appraise=fix evm=fix". [2] 3) I'm not sure if the test even work as expected. But I try to test it again and test if it will work with REQUIRED_POLICY_CONTENT. Kind regards, Petr [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20190211165323.9369-1-iforster@suse.com/ [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima#evm-tests > thanks, > Mimi -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp