On 1/14/21 9:48 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 1/14/21 8:50 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 11:44 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
[Cc'ing Sasha]
Hi Lakshmi,
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 08:22 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 1/13/21 6:49 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
Lakshmi is trying to address the situation where an event changes a
value, but then is restored to the original value. The original and
subsequent events are measured, but restoring to the original value
isn't re-measured. This isn't any different than when a file is
modified and then reverted.
Instead of changing the name like this, which doesn't work for
files,
allowing duplicate measurements should be generic, based on policy.
Perhaps it is just the end of the day and I'm a bit tired, but I just
read all of the above and I have no idea what your current thoughts
are regarding this patch.
Other than appending the timestamp, which is a hack, the patch is
fine.
Support for re-measuring an event can be upstreamed independently.
Thanks for clarifying the details related to duplicate measurement
detection and re-measuring.
I will keep the timestamp for the time being, even though its a
hack, as
it helps with re-measuring state changes in SELinux. We will add
support
for "policy driven" re-measurement as a subsequent patch series.
Once including the timestamp is upstreamed, removing it will be
difficult, especially if different userspace applications are dependent
on it. Unless everyone is on board that removing the timestamp
wouldn't be considered a regression, it cannot be upstreamed.
Feel free to just re-post just this one patch. Otherwise the patch set
looks good.
thanks,
Sounds good Mimi - I will remove the timestamp and re-post the selinux
patch.
I have removed the timestamp in the event name and have posted the
selinux patch alone.
Thanks a lot for reviewing the changes.
-lakshmi
