On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:52 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:43:58PM +1000, James Morris wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > To resolve this locking problem, this patch set introduces a new > > > > ->integrity_read file operation method. Until all filesystems > > > > define the new ->integrity_read method, files that were previously > > > > measured might not be currently measured and files that were > > > > previously appraised might fail to be appraised properly. > > > > > > Are there any such filesystems in mainline which are not getting an > > > integrity_read method in this patchset? > > > > There are a few, mostly because we're pretty sure the previous integrity > > code did the wrong thing for them - e.g. ocfs2 and gfs2 where locking > > vs operations on other cluster nodes was missing, or NFS where in addition > > to the above deadlocks were 100% reprodicible with current code. > > Should we do a warn_once for these filesystems when IMA is used? I don't think it is necessary. In terms of IMA-measurement, any file in policy on an unsupported filesystem will be in the measurement list, but the file hash will be 0's. In terms of IMA-appraisal, any file in policy on an unsupported filesystem will fail appraisal, since the file hash is 0. A separate patch set will emit a warning when a file system is mounted without i_version. Mimi
