lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)
Quoting Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org):
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:17:35PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > I have a bit of a problem parsing the above, and it certainly doesn't
> > > look like a justification for keeping all that unused code around.
> >
> > The purpose of LIM is to provide an integrity infrastructure to support
> > different types of integrity data. IMA implements both the LIM
> > API for it's own internal use, and exports it for others to call.
> >
> > As Dave Safford pointed out in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/17/362,
> > there are other projects that want to add differently structured
> > measurements to the TPM measurement list. The template abstraction is
> > critical to allowing these differently formatted messages to be added to
> > the list.
>
> I think we're talking past each other.
>
> In integrity.h there are two operation vectors defines:
>
> - struct integrity_operations delcares the operations called from the
> VFS. This one is actually used. While I don't agree to Dave's
> argument, because we don't put bloat in just because people might
> eventually some day use it when they are in the right mood and the
> sun shines, thisn't isn't the one I'm talking about in this thread.
> - struct template_operations on the others is not only really badly
> named for appearing in a global header but also not used in a
> meaningfull way. There is one single instace of it,
> ima_template_ops, and while there are five helpers added in the
> second patch that use it (integrity_collect_measurement,
> integrity_appraise_measurement, integrity_store_measurement,
> integrity_store_template, integrity_must_measure) none of them
> is used at all during the patch series. There are two direct
> uses of these template added in the third path, to implement the
> show operations for the "binary_runtime_measurements" and
> "ascii_runtime_measurements" files ins securityfs, but given that
> those are inside ima there no reason for the indirection at all.

Yeah I can definately see that.

Mimi, you used to have another template (I thought) which just tracked
security_ops to try and prevent subversion of the LSM hooks. Or something like
that. That was a separate template_ops, right? Can you post that again? That
might answer both Christoph's query about the usefulness of the indirection,
and Dave's question about "how could I use this, anyway".

If you do repost it, please be very clear about what it is expected
to do/protect against, and how, using no acronyms which you don't
define on first use :)

thanks,
-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-04 20:25    [W:0.241 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site