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.sa...@polito.it> wrote:
On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Roberto
Sassu<roberto.sa...@polito.it> 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 to
isn'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 Sassu
Also, 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: barbi...@gmail.com
Skype: gsbarbieri
Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202
I'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 build
the '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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
