[dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)
James Morris
jmorris at namei.org
Fri Aug 7 16:41:05 UTC 2020
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >
> > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need
> > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems,
> > > which makes validating file integrity so much easier. From the
> > > beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in
> > > the measurement list. (I thought someone signed on to add that support
> > > to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.)
> > >
> > > Going forward I see a lot of what we've accomplished being incorporated
> > > into the filesystems. When IMA will be limited to defining a system
> > > wide policy, I'll have completed my job.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on IPE being a standalone LSM? Would you prefer to
> > see its functionality integrated into IMA?
>
> Improving the integrity subsystem would be preferred.
>
Are you planning to attend Plumbers? Perhaps we could propose a BoF
session on this topic.
--
James Morris
<jmorris at namei.org>
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list