From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261627AbVFOWtf (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:49:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261622AbVFOWtc (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:49:32 -0400 Received: from igw2.watson.ibm.com ([129.34.20.6]:24511 "EHLO igw2.watson.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261619AbVFOWtR (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:49:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:48:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Reiner Sailer To: serue@us.ibm.com cc: Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Toml@us.ibm.com, Greg KH , LKML , LSM , Chris Wright , Reiner Sailer , Emilyr@us.ibm.com, Kylene@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code Message-ID: X-Warning: UNAuthenticated Sender MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Serge E. Hallyn (serue@us.ibm.com) wrote: > > That's true, of course. Reiner, would any of the integrity measurement > hooks be moved to a better place than the current LSM hooks? Is there a > preferred ordering - ie measurement should always happen before the LSM > modules, or always after? Either of these would of course be clear > reasons to separate IMA into its own subsystem. > > thanks, > -serge Originally, IMA was not an LSM. However, when moving to a 2.6 kernel, we moved it to LSM and have found very easily the current hooks. I don't think the hook position would change when moving from LSM to non-LSM. Thanks Reiner