On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:08 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 09:50 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 09:35 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > > [The IMA/EVM and the TPM mailing lists have been combined as a single > > > linux-integrity mailing list.] > > > > > > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:26 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > Sorry for the late review. I just started dusting off my i_version > > > > rework, and noticed that IMA still has unaddressed problems here. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Personally, I'm not a huge fan of this scheme. It seems quite invasive, > > > > and doesn't really seem to address the stated problem well. > > > > > > A cleaned up version of this patch set was meant to follow the > > > introduction of a new integrity_read method, but that patch set was > > > rejected. At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a > > > cleaned up version this patch set either. > > > > > > > The warning itself seems ok, but I don't really see what's wrong with > > > > performing remeasurement when the mtime changes on filesystems that > > > > don't have SB_I_VERSION set. Surely that's better than limiting it to an > > > > initial measurement? > > > > > > > > Maybe I just don't understand what you're really trying to achieve here. > > > > > > Based on discussions with Sascha Hauer, he convinced me the i_version > > > test is basically just a performance improvement and posted a patch > > > that checks the filesystem for i_version support, before relying on it > > > - https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html. > > > > > > Mimi > > > > > > > Thanks for the link. That patch looks good to me. Any idea when and if > > it will be merged? > > Is that an Ack? Barring any testing issues, I'll upstream it with > yours in the next open window. > > Mimi > Sure, you can add: Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
