Re: [Linux-ima-user] [systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/2] main: added support for loading IMA custom policies
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 02/16/2012 05:56 AM, Michael Cassaniti wrote:
On 16/02/2012 04:12, Roberto Sassu wrote:On 02/15/2012 05:55 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Roberto Sassu<roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Roberto Sassu<roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:The new function ima_setup() loads an IMA custom policy from a file in the default location '/etc/sysconfig/ima-policy', if present, and writes it toisn't /etc/sysconfig too specific to Fedora?Hi Gustavo probably yes. I see the code in 'src/locale-setup.c' where the the configuration directory depends on the target distribution. I can implement something like that in my patch.Can't IMA be changed? Lennart seems to be pushing for distribution independent location files. If you can get IMA people to agree on something, just use this one instead. People that use IMA with systemd must use this location. Eventually this will happen with every configuration file we support.The location of the policy file is not IMA dependent. I chose that because it seemed to me the right place where to put this file. So, i can easily modify the location to be distribution independent but i don't known which directory would be appropriate. Any proposal? Regards Roberto SassuAlso, I certainly have no such things in my system and see no point in calling ima_setup() on it. Or even compiling the source file in such case.Ok. I can enclose the code in ima-setup.c within an 'ifdef HAVE_IMA' statement, as it happens for SELinux. However an issue is that there is no a specific package for IMA that can be checked to set the HAVE_IMA definition to yes. Instead, the code can be enabled for example by adding the parameter '--enable_ima' in the configure script.okay. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: barbieri@xxxxxxxxx Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202I'm under the impression this function belongs to a userspace tool. If not then I just don't see a good reason that this patch is required. I do understand that the IMA policy should be loaded as early as possible, but I believe that early userspace scripts should be doing that work. If it is a userspace function, then whatever makes you happy, other distro's will roll their own.
Thanks Mimi for your contribution. I just want to add some considerations. Hi Michael the reason for which the loading of IMA policies has been placed in the main Systemd executable is that the measurement process performed by IMA should start as early as possible. Otherwise, in order to buildthe 'chain of trust' during the boot process from the BIOS to software applications, it is required to measure those components loaded before
IMA is initialized with other means (for example from the boot loader). The more the IMA initialization is postponed, greater is the number of components that must be measured using the second way. For instance, if the policy loading is done in a userspace script you have to measure the interpreter and the configuration files read by the latter. Since the policy loading can be implemented in different ways depending on the init system (systemd, upstart, ...), an user must identify the components to be measured for each case. Instead, if the IMA policy is loaded in the main Systemd executable, only this file must be measured by the boot loader. Regards Roberto Sassu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html