On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 09:52 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 17:38 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Commit 98de59bfe4b2f ("take calculation of final prot in
> > security_mmap_file() into a helper") caused ima_file_mmap() to receive the
> > protections requested by the application and not those applied by the
> > kernel.
> >
> > After restoring the original MMAP_CHECK behavior with a patch, existing
> > systems might be broken due to not being ready to handle new entries
> > (previously missing) in the IMA measurement list.
>
> Is this a broken system or a broken attestation server? The
> attestation server might not be able to handle the additional
> measurements, but the system, itself, is not broken.
Ok, wasn't clear. I meant attestation server. The system itself is not
broken.
> "with a patch" is unnecessary.
Ok.
> > Restore the original correct MMAP_CHECK behavior instead of keeping the
>
> ^ add missing comma after "behavior"
>
> > current buggy one and introducing a new hook with the correct behavior. The
> > second option
>
> ^ The second option -> Otherwise,
>
> > would have had the risk of IMA users not noticing the problem
> > at all, as they would actively have to update the IMA policy, to switch to
> > the correct behavior.
> >
> > Also, introduce the new MMAP_CHECK_REQPROT hook to keep the current
> > behavior, so that IMA users could easily fix a broken system, although this
> > approach is discouraged due to potentially missing measurements.
>
> Again, is this a broken system or a broken attestation server?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Otherwise, the patch looks good.
Ok, will make the changes.
Thanks
Roberto
