[PATCH v2 0/6] bpf-lsm: Extend interoperability with IMA

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:12:35AM +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:08 AM
> > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar at linux.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 8:11 PM
> > > On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 08:41 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar at linux.ibm.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:22 AM
> > > > > Hi Roberto,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 13:40 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > > > Extend the interoperability with IMA, to give wider flexibility for the
> > > > > > implementation of integrity-focused LSMs based on eBPF.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've previously requested adding eBPF module measurements and signature
> > > > > verification support in IMA.  There seemed to be some interest, but
> > > > > nothing has been posted.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mimi
> > > >
> > > > for my use case, DIGLIM eBPF, IMA integrity verification is
> > > > needed until the binary carrying the eBPF program is executed
> > > > as the init process. I've been thinking to use an appended
> > > > signature to overcome the limitation of lack of xattrs in the
> > > > initial ram disk.
> > >
> > > I would still like to see xattrs supported in the initial ram disk.
> > > Assuming you're still interested in pursuing it, someone would need to
> > > review and upstream it.  Greg?
> > 
> > I could revise this work. However, since appended signatures
> > would work too, I would propose to extend this appraisal
> > mode to executables, if it is fine for you.
> 
> Regarding this patch set, I kindly ask if you could accept it,
> after I make the changes suggested.
> 
> The changes are simple, and waiting another kernel cycle
> seems too long.

3 months is not a long time, get it right first, there is no deadline
here.

thanks,

greg k-h