Hi Jeff,

[The IMA/EVM and the TPM mailing lists have been combined as a single
linux-integrity mailing list.]

On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:26 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:

Sorry for the late review. I just started dusting off my i_version
rework, and noticed that IMA still has unaddressed problems here.

<snip>

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of this scheme. It seems quite invasive,
and doesn't really seem to address the stated problem well.

A cleaned up version of this patch set was meant to follow the
introduction of a new integrity_read method, but that patch set was
rejected. ?At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a
cleaned up version this patch set either.

The warning itself seems ok, but I don't really see what's wrong with
performing remeasurement when the mtime changes on filesystems that
don't have SB_I_VERSION set. Surely that's better than limiting it to an
initial measurement?

Maybe I just don't understand what you're really trying to achieve here.

Based on discussions with Sascha Hauer, he convinced me the i_version
test is basically just a performance improvement and posted a patch
that checks the filesystem for i_version support, before relying on it
- ?https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html.

Mimi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html