[Cc: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian, steven chen]
On Tue, 2026-04-14 at 13:12 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 08:22:34PM -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > The dm-ima code does not guarantee that the dm_ima_measure_on_*
> > functions will not be called at the same time. Since they modify and
> > free shared memory, this can lead to Use-After-Free errors or garbage
> > measurements. Further, they don't make sure that the state they measure
> > corresponds to the actual device state. For instance if table_load()
> > runs at the same time as do_resume() on a table swap,
> > dm_ima_measure_on_device_resume() can end up thinking the wrong table is
> > active. Or a concurrent dm_hash_rename() and a table swap, can end up
> > with a the new active table still using the old name. This patchset
> > makes sure the the dm-ima function are serialized and report the correct
> > device state.
> >
> > However, the code is still messier that in could be. This is because
> > it duplicates the current measurement events and format. I would really
> > like to know if that is necessary. Specifically, it currently measures
> > the following dm device and table actions:
> >
> > load
> > clear
> > rename
> > resume
> > remove
> >
> > I don't see the benefit of reporting changes to the inactive table, or
> > resumes where the device does not change state. From the user's point of
> > view, the device is still the same after these events. At the same
> > time, it doesn't measure device creates if no table was loaded, so you
> > can have situations where the the first measurement for a device is a
> > rename or a remove. A more sensible set of actions to measure would be:
> >
> > create
> > table_swap
> > rename
> > remove
> >
> > Also, the measurement format doesn't map well to how dm device's are
> > actually set up, in a way that makes it harder for the code and records
> > extraneous information. First, like I mentioned before, I don't see the
> > benefit of measuring the inactive table. Second, the name, uuid, and
> > major/minor numbers are properties of the device, not it's table (and dm
> > devices can't have partitions, so the minor count will always be 1). I
> > don't see a reason to store and occasinally log this information twice,
> > if there is an active and incative table, and it forces extra
> > coordination between the dm_ima_measure_on_* functions.
> >
> > I'm wondering it we are stuck with the current events and format, now
> > that this has been released? Or could we bump the version, and change
> > what events we measure, and how we format the output?
> >
> > Benjamin Marzinski (10):
> > dm-ima: remove dm_ima_reset_data()
> > dm-ima: remove broken last_target_measured logic
> > dm-ima: Remove status_flags from dm_ima_measure_on_table_load()
> > dm-ima: don't copy the active table to the inactive table
> > dm-ima: Fix UAF errors and measuring incorrect context
> > dm-ima: remove new_map from dm_ima_measure_on_device_clear
> > dm-ima: Fix issues with dm_ima_measure_on_device_rename
> > dm-ima: Handle race between rename and table swap
> > dm-ima: Fail more gracefully in dm_ima_measure_on_*
> > dm-ima: use active table's size if available
> >
> > drivers/md/dm-ima.c | 506 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > drivers/md/dm-ima.h | 67 ++++--
> > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c | 146 +++++++++++-
> > drivers/md/dm.c | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 421 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
>
> Pretty extensive changes needed here all things considered.
>
> SO I'm aware, who is using dm-ima? I see that Tushar Sugandhi is no
> longer at Microsoft and so he isn't cc'd on these changes. I can
> infer from Cc some potential users, but I just want to make sure this
> code isn't just technical debt that we're having to carry in DM now?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
