On Mon, 2026-05-04 at 16:51 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 8:03 AM Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2026-05-03 at 12:46 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > Regardless, assuming you always want IMA to leverage a TPMs when they > > > exist, your reply suggests that using an initcall based IMA init > > > scheme, even a late-sync initcall, may not be sufficient because > > > deferred TPM initialization could happen later, yes? > > > > Well yeah. The TPM could be configured as a module, but that scenario is > > not of > > interest. That's way too late. The case being addressed in this patch set > > is > > when the TPM driver tries to initialize at device_initcall, returns > > EPROBE_DEFER, and is retried at deferred_probe_initcall (late_initcall). > > Since > > ordering within an initcall is not supported, this patch attempts to > > initialize > > IMA at late_initcall and similarly retries, in this case, at > > late_initcall_sync. > > Okay, so from a TPM initialization perspective you are satisfied with > a late-sync IMA initialization, yes?
No. On some architectures moving IMA initialization from the late_initcall to late_initcall_sync does not miss any measurement records. However, as previously mentioned, Linux running in a PowerVM LPAR the move would drop ~30 measurement records[1]. So no, only if the TPM is not initialized by late_initcall, should IMA retry at late_initcall_sync. Mimi [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/[email protected]/
