Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] security: ima: introduce IMA_INIT_LATE_SYNC option

[Yeoreum Yun]

Hi Mimi,

> On Mon, 2026-05-25 at 08:54 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > To generate the boot_aggregate log in the IMA subsystem with TPM PCR values,
> > the TPM driver must be built as built-in and
> > must be probed before the IMA subsystem is initialized.
> > 
> > However, when the TPM device operates over the FF-A protocol using
> > the CRB interface, probing fails and returns -EPROBE_DEFER if
> > the tpm_crb_ffa device — an FF-A device that provides the communication
> > interface to the tpm_crb driver — has not yet been probed.
> > 
> > To ensure the TPM device operating over the FF-A protocol with
> > the CRB interface is probed before IMA initialization,
> > the following conditions must be met:
> > 
> > 1. The corresponding ffa_device must be registered,
> >    which is done via ffa_init().
> > 
> > 2. The tpm_crb_driver must successfully probe this device via
> >    tpm_crb_ffa_init().
> > 
> > 3. The tpm_crb driver using CRB over FF-A can then
> >    be probed successfully. (See crb_acpi_add() and
> >    tpm_crb_ffa_init() for reference.)
> > 
> > Unfortunately, ffa_init(), tpm_crb_ffa_init(), and crb_acpi_driver_init() are
> > all registered with device_initcall, which means crb_acpi_driver_init() may
> > be invoked before ffa_init() and tpm_crb_ffa_init() are completed.
> > 
> > When this occurs, probing the TPM device is deferred.
> > However, the deferred probe can happen after the IMA subsystem
> > has already been initialized, since IMA initialization is performed
> > during late_initcall, and deferred_probe_initcall() is performed
> > at the same level.
> > 
> > And the similar situation is reported on TPM devices attached on SPI
> > bus[0].
> > 
> > To resolve this, introduce IMA_INIT_LATE_SYNC option to initialise
> > IMA at late_inicall_sync so that IMA is initialized with the TPM
> > device probed deffered.
> 
> -> deferred

Thanks. I'll fix this typo.

> 
> > 
> > When this option is enabled, modules that access files in the
> > initramfs through usermode helper calls such as request_module()
> > during initcall must not be built-in. Otherwise, IMA may miss
> > measuring those files since they're the file accesses before the
> 
> Reword or remove phrase starting with "since".

Okay. I'll remove this phrase starting with "since".

> 
> > initialisation of IMA [1].
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aYXEepLhUouN5f99@xxxxxxxx/ [0]
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2b3782398cc17ce9d355490a0c42ebce9120a9ae.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1]
> > Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@xxxxxxx>
> 
> This version of the patch drops differentiating the boot_aggregate record based
> on initcall as was posted in "[RFC PATCH v3 1/4] lsm: Allow LSMs to register for
> late_initcall_sync init".  Being able to differentiate the initcalls is need by
> the remote attestation services.

Thanks ;) I overlooked for the remote attestation.
Then For the IMA_INIT_LATE_SYNC option, As the former patch did,
Let IMA use the name "boot_aggregate_late" for boot_aggregate record.

-- 
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun