Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN EVM status

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:26 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@
> >>   			Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" }
> >>   			default: "enforce"
> >>   
> >> +	ima_appraise_req_evm
> >> +			[IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests.
> > 
> > As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command
> > line options as possible.  Is there a reason for not extending
> > "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"?
> 
> ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which
> probably is done when the system is in production.
> 
> Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if
> CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n?

Yes, that should be fine.  It's making "ima_appraise" stricter.

Mimi




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux