[PATCH v9 0/25] security: Move IMA and EVM to the LSM infrastructure

[Paul Moore]

On Jan 15, 2024 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> 
> IMA and EVM are not effectively LSMs, especially due to the fact that in
> the past they could not provide a security blob while there is another LSM
> active.
> 
> That changed in the recent years, the LSM stacking feature now makes it
> possible to stack together multiple LSMs, and allows them to provide a
> security blob for most kernel objects. While the LSM stacking feature has
> some limitations being worked out, it is already suitable to make IMA and
> EVM as LSMs.
> 
> The main purpose of this patch set is to remove IMA and EVM function calls,
> hardcoded in the LSM infrastructure and other places in the kernel, and to
> register them as LSM hook implementations, so that those functions are
> called by the LSM infrastructure like other regular LSMs.

Thanks Roberto, this is looking good.  I appreciate all the work you've
put into making this happen; when I first mentioned this idea I figured
it would be something that would happen much farther into the future, I
wasn't expecting to see you pick this up and put in the work to make it
happen - thank you.

I had some pretty minor comments but I think the only thing I saw that
I think needs a change/addition is a comment in the Makefile regarding
the IMA/EVM ordering; take a look and let me know what you think.

There are also a few patches in the patchset that don't have an
ACK/review tag from Mimi, although now that you are co-maininting IMA/EVM
with Mimi I don't know if that matters.  If the two of you can let me
know how you want me to handle LSM patches that are IMA/EVM related I
would appreciate it (two ACKs, one or other, something else?).

Once you add a Makefile commane and we sort out the IMA/EVM approval
process I think we're good to get this into linux-next.  A while back
Mimi and I had a chat offline and if I recall everything correctly she
preferred that I take this patchset via the LSM tree.  I don't have a
problem with that, and to be honest I would probably prefer
that too, but I wanted to check with everyone that is still the case.
Just in case, I've added my ACKs/reviews to this patchset in case this
needs to be merged via the integrity tree.

--
paul-moore.com