Hi Tushar,system administrators are usually responsible for system policies/configurations.They own modifications in the config files like
On Sat, 2020-12-12 at 10:02 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
System administrators should be able to limit which kernel subsystems
they want to measure the critical data for. To enable that, an IMA policy
condition to choose specific kernel subsystems is needed. This policy
condition would constrain the measurement of the critical data based on
a label for the given subsystems.
Restricting which kernel integrity critical data is measured is not
only of interest to system administrators. Why single them out?
Limiting which critical data is measured is based on a label, making itMakes sense. Will make the patch description more generic.
flexible. In your use case scenario, you're grouping the label based
on kernel subsystem, but is that really necessary? In the broader
picture, there could be cross subsystem critical data being measured
based on a single label.
Please think about the broader picture and re-write the patch
descirption more generically.
Sounds good. Would you prefer "label" or something else like "data_label"?
Add a new IMA policy condition - "data_source:=" to the IMA func
What is with "add"? You're "adding support for" or "defining" a new
policy condition. Remove the single hyphen, as explained in 3/8.
Please replace "data_source" with something more generic (e.g. label).
thanks,
Mimi
CRITICAL_DATA to allow measurement of various kernel subsystems. This
policy condition would enable the system administrators to restrict the
measurement to the labels listed in "data_source:=".
Limit the measurement to the labels that are specified in the IMA
policy - CRITICAL_DATA+"data_source:=". If "data_sources:=" is not
provided with the func CRITICAL_DATA, the data from all the
supported kernel subsystems is measured.
Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>