On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:12:35AM +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > From: Roberto Sassu > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:08 AM > > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 8:11 PM > > > On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 08:41 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:22 AM > > > > > Hi Roberto, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 13:40 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > > Extend the interoperability with IMA, to give wider flexibility for the > > > > > > implementation of integrity-focused LSMs based on eBPF. > > > > > > > > > > I've previously requested adding eBPF module measurements and signature > > > > > verification support in IMA. There seemed to be some interest, but > > > > > nothing has been posted. > > > > > > > > Hi Mimi > > > > > > > > for my use case, DIGLIM eBPF, IMA integrity verification is > > > > needed until the binary carrying the eBPF program is executed > > > > as the init process. I've been thinking to use an appended > > > > signature to overcome the limitation of lack of xattrs in the > > > > initial ram disk. > > > > > > I would still like to see xattrs supported in the initial ram disk. > > > Assuming you're still interested in pursuing it, someone would need to > > > review and upstream it. Greg? > > > > I could revise this work. However, since appended signatures > > would work too, I would propose to extend this appraisal > > mode to executables, if it is fine for you. > > Regarding this patch set, I kindly ask if you could accept it, > after I make the changes suggested. > > The changes are simple, and waiting another kernel cycle > seems too long. 3 months is not a long time, get it right first, there is no deadline here. thanks, greg k-h
