On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 15:34 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 07:45 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > For server/IMA use case I'll add a boot parameter it can be > > > > either on or off by default, I will state that in the commit > > > > message and we'll go from there. > > > > Sounds good. > > But only after this patch set lands. I gave this a thought and since > this patch set is specifically for a specific Bugzilla bug that it > closes, I have no interest to increase its scope. Prior to your performance improvement patch set it took >10 minutes to boot, when it succeeded booting. Now on Fedora 40 with "ima_policy=tcb" on the boot command line, it's taking ~3 minutes to boot. Do you really think that is acceptable?! > > > > > > > > Up until legit fixes are place distributors can easily disable > > > the feature. It would be worse if TCG_TPM2_HMAC did not exist. > > > > > > So I think it is better to focus on doing right things right, > > > since the feature itself is useful objectively, and make sure > > > that those fixes bring the wanted results. The right thing would have been to listen to my concerns when this was initially being discussed. The right thing wasn't enabling TCG_TPM2_HMAC by default. > > > > Are you backtracking on having a boot parameter here specifically to > > turn on/off > > HMAC encryption for IMA? > > I'm not really sure yet but obviously any change goes through review. > > Also fastest route is to send your own RFC's to IMA specific issue. > For me it will take some time (post this patch set). Done. The patch applies cleanly with/without the TPM performance improvement patch set. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20241015193916.59964-1-zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Mimi
