[systemd-devel] [Linux-ima-user] [PATCH 2/2] main: added support for loading IMA custom policies
m.cassaniti at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 20:56:15 PST 2012
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 at 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.sassu at 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?
> 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
>>> 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.
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>> http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
>> MSN: barbieri at 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.
More information about the systemd-devel