On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:58 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:01 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 11:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:05 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, I
> > > > think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY.
> > > >
> > > > Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly.
> > >
> > > I believe LSM_ID_IMA is the better option, despite "integrity" already
> > > being present in Kconfig and possibly other areas. "IMA" is a
> > > specific thing/LSM whereas "integrity" is a property, principle, or
> > > quality. Especially as we move forward with promoting IMA as a full
> > > and proper LSM, we should work towards referring to it as "IMA" and
> > > not "integrity".
> > >
> > > If anything we should be working to support "IMA" in places where we
> > > currently have "integrity" so that we can eventually deprecate
> > > "integrity".
> >
> > Hi Paul
> >
> > I fully understand your argument. However, 'integrity' has been the
> > word to identify the integrity subsystem since long time ago.
> >
> > Reducing the scope to 'ima' would create some confusion since, while
> > 'ima' is associated to integrity, it would not encompass EVM.
>
> Using LSM_ID_IMA to reference the combination of IMA+EVM makes much
> more sense to me than using LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, especially as we move
> towards promoting IMA+EVM and adopting LSM hooks for integrity
> verification, opening the door for other integrity focused LSMs.
+ Mimi, linux-integrity
Ok, just to understand before posting v4, the code looks like this:
+const struct lsm_id integrity_lsmid = {
+ .name = "integrity",
+ .id = LSM_ID_IMA,
+};
+
DEFINE_LSM(integrity) = {
.name = "integrity",
- .init = integrity_iintcache_init,
+ .init = integrity_lsm_init,
.order = LSM_ORDER_LAST,
};
Is it ok?
Thanks
Roberto
