Hi Tushar, 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 it 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. > > 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 <tusha...@linux.microsoft.com>
