Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:01 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 11:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:05 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, I
> > > think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY.
> > >
> > > Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly.
> >
> > I believe LSM_ID_IMA is the better option, despite "integrity" already
> > being present in Kconfig and possibly other areas.  "IMA" is a
> > specific thing/LSM whereas "integrity" is a property, principle, or
> > quality.  Especially as we move forward with promoting IMA as a full
> > and proper LSM, we should work towards referring to it as "IMA" and
> > not "integrity".
> >
> > If anything we should be working to support "IMA" in places where we
> > currently have "integrity" so that we can eventually deprecate
> > "integrity".
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I fully understand your argument. However, 'integrity' has been the
> word to identify the integrity subsystem since long time ago.
>
> Reducing the scope to 'ima' would create some confusion since, while
> 'ima' is associated to integrity, it would not encompass EVM.

Using LSM_ID_IMA to reference the combination of IMA+EVM makes much
more sense to me than using LSM_ID_INTEGRITY, especially as we move
towards promoting IMA+EVM and adopting LSM hooks for integrity
verification, opening the door for other integrity focused LSMs.

-- 
paul-moore.com