On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:58 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:01 AM Roberto Sassu
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 11:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:05 AM Roberto Sassu
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, I
think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY.

Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly.

I believe LSM_ID_IMA is the better option, despite "integrity" already
being present in Kconfig and possibly other areas.  "IMA" is a
specific thing/LSM whereas "integrity" is a property, principle, or
quality.  Especially as we move forward with promoting IMA as a full
and proper LSM, we should work towards referring to it as "IMA" and
not "integrity".

If anything we should be working to support "IMA" in places where we
currently have "integrity" so that we can eventually deprecate
"integrity".

Hi Paul

I fully understand your argument. However, 'integrity' has been the
word to identify the integrity subsystem since long time ago.

Reducing the scope to 'ima' would create some confusion since, while
'ima' is associated to integrity, it would not encompass EVM.

Using LSM_ID_IMA to reference the combination of IMA+EVM makes much
more sense to me than using LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, especially as we move
towards promoting IMA+EVM and adopting LSM hooks for integrity
verification, opening the door for other integrity focused LSMs.

+ Mimi, linux-integrity

Ok, just to understand before posting v4, the code looks like this:

+const struct lsm_id integrity_lsmid = {
+	.name = "integrity",
+	.id = LSM_ID_IMA,
+};
+
 DEFINE_LSM(integrity) = {
 	.name = "integrity",
-	.init = integrity_iintcache_init,
+	.init = integrity_lsm_init,
 	.order = LSM_ORDER_LAST,
 };
 
Is it ok?

Thanks

Roberto