From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934643Ab3BNPXp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:23:45 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57194 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758140Ab3BNPXm (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:23:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:23:39 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: Mimi Zohar Cc: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ima: Support appraise_type=imasig_optional Message-ID: <20130214152339.GB16671@redhat.com> References: <1360613493-11969-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1360613493-11969-3-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1360760195.3524.355.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com> <1360763044.3524.367.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com> <20130213165922.GD6750@redhat.com> <1360846636.3524.589.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1360846636.3524.589.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:57:16AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: [..] > > Ok, I will cleanup the code to do above. Just wanted to clear up one > > point. > > > > Above option will not have any effect on evm behavior? This only impacts > > IMA appraisal behavior. For example, if security.ima is not present it > > is fine and file access is allowed. But if EVM is enabled and initialized > > and EVM does not find security.evm label (INTEGRITY_NOLABEL) or returns > > INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS, file access should still be denied? > > Can't happen. evm_verifyxattr() is called from > ima_appraise_measurement(), only if 'security.ima' exists. Actually what I meant is following. Currently in process_measurement(), I will allow access if ima_appraise_measurement() returns INTEGRITY_NOLABEL. Now this could mean 2 things. - security.ima was not present. - security.ima was there but security.evm was not present. With appraise_type=optional, I think we would want to allow access in first case but not the second one. IOW, appraise_type= affects behavior of IMA and not EVM. That means we need to introduce new codes. INTEGRITY_IMA_NOLABEL and INTEGRITY_EVM_NOLABEL to differentiate between above two cases? Thanks Vivek