[PATCH v4 00/14] security: digest_cache LSM

[Roberto Sassu]

On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 11:49 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 3:59 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-06-18 at 19:20 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:25 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Integrity detection and protection has long been a desirable feature, to
> > > > reach a large user base and mitigate the risk of flaws in the software
> > > > and attacks.
> > > > 
> > > > However, while solutions exist, they struggle to reach the large user
> > > > base, due to requiring higher than desired constraints on performance,
> > > > flexibility and configurability, that only security conscious people are
> > > > willing to accept.
> > > > 
> > > > This is where the new digest_cache LSM comes into play, it offers
> > > > additional support for new and existing integrity solutions, to make
> > > > them faster and easier to deploy.
> > > > 
> > > > The full documentation with the motivation and the solution details can be
> > > > found in patch 14.
> > > > 
> > > > The IMA integration patch set will be introduced separately. Also a PoC
> > > > based on the current version of IPE can be provided.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure we want to implement a cache as a LSM.  I'm sure it would
> > > work, but historically LSMs have provided some form of access control,
> > > measurement, or other traditional security service.  A digest cache,
> > > while potentially useful for a variety of security related
> > > applications, is not a security service by itself, it is simply a file
> > > digest storage mechanism.
> > 
> > Uhm, currently the digest_cache LSM is heavily based on the LSM
> > infrastructure:
> 
> I understand that, but as I said previously, I don't believe that we
> want to support a LSM which exists solely to provide a file digest
> cache.  LSMs should be based around the idea of some type of access
> control, security monitoring, etc.
> 
> Including a file digest cache in IMA, or implementing it as a
> standalone piece of kernel functionality, are still options.  If you
> want to pursue this, I would suggest that including the digest cache
> as part of IMA would be the easier of the two options; if it proves to
> be generally useful outside of IMA, it can always be abstracted out to
> a general kernel module/subsystem.

Ok. I thought about IPE and eBPF as potential users. But if you think
that adding as part of IMA would be easier, I could try to pursue that.

Thanks

Roberto