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
