From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6F19724 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:52:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4646E16B for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:52:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u711nIYT114290 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:52:57 -0400 Received: from e28smtp03.in.ibm.com (e28smtp03.in.ibm.com [125.16.236.3]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 24gn47umnu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:52:57 -0400 Received: from localhost by e28smtp03.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:22:54 +0530 Received: from d28relay08.in.ibm.com (d28relay08.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.159]) by d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892AA1258060 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:25:53 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay08.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u711qokZ38994080 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:22:50 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u711qnaO013520 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:22:50 +0530 From: Mimi Zohar To: Andy Lutomirski Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:52:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20160716005213.GL30372@sirena.org.uk> <1469544138.120686.327.camel@infradead.org> <14209.1469636040@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1469636881.27356.70.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1469637367.27356.73.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1469648220.23563.15.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160728165728.GR4541@io.lakedaemon.net> <1469830256.23563.200.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160730163626.GP3296@wotan.suse.de> <1469934481.23563.274.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1469979098.23563.300.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1469986138.23563.312.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1470016365.23563.354.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: James Bottomley , Mark Brown , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Last minute nominations: mcgrof and toshi List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On So, 2016-07-31 at 11:20 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Jul 31, 2016 10:29 AM, "Mimi Zohar" wrote: > > > Also, are there any plans to move module signature verification into > > > .kernel_post_read_file? > > > > The whole point of defining the kernel_read_file() family of functions > > was to close a class of measurement/appraisal gaps. > > And to enable firmware verification? Yes, including firmware signature verification. > > To answer your > > question, yes IMA measures and/or appraises files on the security post > > kernel read hook, based on policy. > > I wasn't asking anything about IMA. >>From my understanding of your question, you're asking if there is an LSM that uses this hook for verifying firmware signatures. IMA uses the LSM hooks and defines a few additional hooks to enforce file integrity. For all practical purposes it is an LSM+. > > Andy, other than IMA-appraisal being xattr based, I'm not sure why > > you're so against it. if you're going to be at LinuxCon/LSS, perhaps > > we could speak in person there. > > I have nothing against IMA. I have plenty of objection to the core hooks > being simultaneously messy and not supplying enough information to provide > the security properties they should provide. The discussions took place on the kexec, firmware, kernel modules and LSM mailing lists late last year and earlier this year. You could have commented on the patches and raised your concerns then, but it isn't too late at this point. These are internal functions, not an external API that can not be modified. Though, before making any changes we should address Luis' question, "Path seems like the next target? Anything else ?" Mimi