Re: [RFC 1/1] ima: digital signature verification using asymmetrickeys

[Vivek Goyal]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 08:48:55PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:

[..]
> > Hi Mimi,
> > 
> > By policy you mean ima rules here? So I can either enable default rules
> > (tcb default rules for appraisal and measurement) by using kernel command
> > line options or dynamically configure my own rules using /sysfs interface?
> > 
> > If yes, AFAIK, existing inputtable policies do not allow this selective
> > mode where we do appraisal only on signed executable. That means I shall
> > have to extend the way policies can be specified so that one specify
> > that appraise only signed files?
> 
> We've just added the ability of defining the method for appraising a
> file and defining rules in terms of the filesystem UUID.  Extending the
> IMA policy shouldn't be a problem, but I'm not sure how you would go
> about adding support for only appraising files with digital signatures.

Hi Mimi,

Can we add another field to ima_rule_entry, say .enforcement to control
the behavior of .action. Possible values of .enforcement could be, say.

ALL
SIGNED_ONLY

ALL will be default. And with .action= MEASURE, one could possibly use
.enforcement=SIGNED_ONLY.

Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/