[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