On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 14:39 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > . There is no such thing as "eBPF modules". There are BPF programs. > They cannot be signed the same way as kernel modules. > We've been working on providing a way to sign them for more > than a year now. That work is still ongoing. > > . IMA cannot be used for integrity check of BPF programs for the same > reasons why kernel module like signing cannot be used. I assume the issue isn't where the signature is stored (e.g. appended, xattr), but of calculating the hash. Where is the discussion taking place? Are there any summaries of what has been discussed? FYI, IMA isn't limited to measuring files. Support was added for buffer measurements (e.g kexec boot command line, certificates) and measuring kernel critical data (e.g. SELinux in memory policy & state, device mapper). thanks, Mimi
