Re: [PATCH 2/6] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

[david safford <safford@watson.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:42 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, david safford wrote:
>
> > These hooks were for alternate integrity modules, and since
> > no one else has defended them, we have to agree that they
> > should be replaced with direct calls.
>
> If you know of other modules which are planned to be ported to this
> framework, merged upstream and supported, then this would be similar to
> the situation when LSM was initially developed.
>
> You've previously mentioned some active projects here:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/17/362
>
> Are there any definite commitments to push these upstream when the
> integrity framework is merged?

All of the projects listed in that posting were ones depending on
IMA, with no requirements for alternate modules. I do hope that there
will be other integrity modules in addition to the TPM oriented IMA, 
and I do know of several research projects in this space, but I don't 
know if/when any of these are planning on submission. If others are 
submitted, it would certainly be simple to add the hooks back in.

dave