Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN EVM status
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Date: 2019-05-21 11:49:05
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-integrity, lkml, stable
On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:26 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:quoted
On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt@@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@ Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" } default: "enforce" + ima_appraise_req_evm + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests.As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command line options as possible. Is there a reason for not extending "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"?ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which probably is done when the system is in production. Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n?
Yes, that should be fine. It's making "ima_appraise" stricter. Mimi