On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 14:22 -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 04:55:05PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Without the file signature included in the IMA measurement list, the type > > of file digest is unclear. Set up the plumbing to limit including > > fs-verity's file digest in the IMA measurement list based on whether the > > template name is ima-sig. In the future, this could be relaxed to include > > any template format that includes the file signature. > > > > Does it make sense to tie IMA's fs-verity support to files having signatures? > What about IMA audit mode? I thought that is just about collecting hashes, and > has nothing to do with signatures. There's IMA-measurement, IMA-audit, and IMA-appraisal. IMA-audit refers to adding the file hash to the audit log record. IMA- measurement stores the collected hash in the IMA measurement list and extends the TPM with the measurement, if there's a TPM. Based on policy, determines whether the file is measured, audited, and/or appraised. I actually do think it makes sense to require a signature, but not necessarily enforce signature verification, in order to differentiate the type of measurement being included in the measurement list. thanks, Mimi
