On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:57:16AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: [..] > > Ok, I will cleanup the code to do above. Just wanted to clear up one > > point. > > > > Above option will not have any effect on evm behavior? This only impacts > > IMA appraisal behavior. For example, if security.ima is not present it > > is fine and file access is allowed. But if EVM is enabled and initialized > > and EVM does not find security.evm label (INTEGRITY_NOLABEL) or returns > > INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS, file access should still be denied? > > Can't happen. evm_verifyxattr() is called from > ima_appraise_measurement(), only if 'security.ima' exists.
Actually what I meant is following. Currently in process_measurement(), I will allow access if ima_appraise_measurement() returns INTEGRITY_NOLABEL. Now this could mean 2 things. - security.ima was not present. - security.ima was there but security.evm was not present. With appraise_type=optional, I think we would want to allow access in first case but not the second one. IOW, appraise_type= affects behavior of IMA and not EVM. That means we need to introduce new codes. INTEGRITY_IMA_NOLABEL and INTEGRITY_EVM_NOLABEL to differentiate between above two cases? Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
