lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: IMA: How to manage user space signing policy with others
From
Date
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 10:18 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:

> Can we do following. (Just modifying your proposal little bit).
>
> - Implement a new policy say ima_mem_exec. This policy can vary based on
> config options. This will be the default policy.

Just to clarify, the default is the existing null policy. When
'secureboot' is enabled, ima_mem_exec will be the default policy.

> - ima_mem_exec will be default policy and it can be disabled by passing
> a command line option ima_mem_exec_disable.
>
> - If user wants to use ima_apprase_tcb policy, they can pass two command
> line option. (ima_mem_exec_disable and ima_appraise_tcb).

Both aren't really needed. Nothing changes for existing users, if
'ima_appraise_tcb' replaces the ima_mem_exec policy.

> - Similary if user wants to put its own policy using "policy" interface,
> they need to boot kernel with command line option "ima_mem_exec_disable".

Not a good idea, as this would be a new requirement for existing users.
Invert the logic.

> In the end, this is again "either A or B" mechanism. Both ima_mem_exec
> and ima_appraise_tcb are not co-existing. Comand line option just enables
> choosing one over other.

Does this impact 'ima_tcb' or only 'ima_appraise_tcb'?

> The fact that we are able to replace ima_mem_exec policy using command
> line, binary loader will need a way to query IMA to find what's the
> current policy. If ima_mem_exec has been replaced, then binary loader
> will not memlock files and will not raise extra capability to binary. And
> this will disable kdump functionality on secureboot platforms. (Something
> which I don't like much).

Ok

thanks,

Mimi



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-05 22:21    [W:1.151 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site