[PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls

[Roberto Sassu]

On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 16:40 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:23 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 12:35 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:15 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10/18/2023 3:09 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > > I agree with Roberto.  All three should be defined: LSM_ID_INTEGRITY,
> > > > > LSM_ID_IMA, LSM_ID_EVM.
> > > > 
> > > > I did not try yet, but the 'integrity' LSM does not need an LSM ID. With
> > > > the last version adding hooks to 'ima' or 'evm', it should be sufficient
> > > > to keep DEFINE_LSM(integrity) with the request to store a pointer in the
> > > > security blob (even the init function can be a dummy function).
> > > 
> > > First off, this *really* should have been brought up way, way, *way*
> > > before now.  This patchset has been discussed for months, and bringing
> > > up concerns in the eleventh hour is borderline rude.
> > 
> > As everyone knows IMA and EVM are not LSMs at this point.
> 
> Considering all the work Roberto has been doing to make that happen,
> not to mention the discussions we've had on this topic, that's an
> awfully small technicality to use as the basis of an argument.

Sorry Paul, but I've been working on this patch set for a long time and
you were also involved in the prerequisites (like making the
'integrity' LSM as the last).

I thought it was clear at this point that we were going to add the
hooks to the 'integrity' LSM.

I really have no problem to rebase my work on top of other work, but I
was very surprised to see LSM_ID_IMA instead of LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, and
at minimum this should have been agreed with Mimi. And also, I was not
convinced with the argument that LSM_ID_IMA should represent IMA+EVM.

Roberto