Date:	Wed, 28 May 2008 00:46:10 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, safford@...son.ibm.com,
	serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sailer@...son.ibm.com, zohar@...ibm.com,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	CaseySchaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5]integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:05:33 -0400 Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> This is a request for comments for a redesign of the integrity patches.
>
> ...
>
> +int register_template(char *template_name,
> +			struct template_operations *template_ops)
> +{
> +	int template_len;
> +	struct template_list_entry *entry;
> +
> +	if (!template_initialized++) {
> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&integrity_templates);
> +		mutex_init(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> +	}
> +
> +	entry = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC);
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->template);
> +
> +	template_len = strlen(template_name);
> +	if (template_len > TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN_MAX)
> +		template_len = TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN_MAX;
> +	memcpy(entry->template_name, template_name, template_len);
> +	entry->template_name[template_len] = '\0';
> +	entry->template_ops = template_ops;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> +	list_add_rcu(&entry->template, &integrity_templates);
> +	mutex_unlock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> +	synchronize_rcu();
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(register_template);

Should be integrity_register_template()?

> +/**
> + * unregister_template
> + * @template_name: a pointer to a string containing the template name.
> + *
> + * Unregister the template functions
> + */
> +int unregister_template(char *template_name)
> +{
> +	struct template_list_entry *entry;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> +	list_for_each_entry(entry, &integrity_templates, template) {
> +		if (strncmp(entry->template_name, template_name,
> +			    strlen(entry->template_name)) == 0) {
> +			list_del_rcu(&entry->template);
> +			mutex_unlock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> +			synchronize_rcu();
> +			kfree(entry);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&integrity_templates_mutex);
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_template);

Similarly.

> +/**
> + * integrity_find_template
> + * @template_name: a pointer to a string containing the template name.
> + * @template_ops: a pointer to the template functions
> + *
> + * Find the template functions based on the template name.
> + */
> +int integrity_find_template(char *template_name,
> +				struct template_operations **template_ops)
> +{
> +	struct template_list_entry *entry;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &integrity_templates, template) {
> +		if (strncmp(entry->template_name, template_name,
> +			    strlen(entry->template_name)) == 0) {
> +			*template_ops = entry->template_ops;
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(integrity_find_template);

Strange locking.  We take the rcu_read_lock then locate a pointer to an
object then drop the lock, returning that pointer while doing nothing
to ensure the stability of the returned object?

>
> ...
>
> +#define set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, function)				\
> +	do {								\
> +		if (!ops->function) {					\
> +			ops->function = dummy_##function;		\
> +			printk(KERN_INFO "Had to override the " #function \
> +			" integrity operation with the dummy one.\n");\
> +			}						\
> +	} while (0)

hrm.

Probably the message should identify where it came from?  "integrity:
had to override ..."

>
> ...
>
> @@ -1036,6 +1038,7 @@ struct dentry *d_instantiate_unique(stru
>  	spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
>  
>  	if (!result) {
> +		integrity_d_instantiate(entry, inode);
>  		security_d_instantiate(entry, inode);
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
> @@ -1173,6 +1176,7 @@ struct dentry *d_splice_alias(struct ino
>  			BUG_ON(!(new->d_flags & DCACHE_DISCONNECTED));
>  			fsnotify_d_instantiate(new, inode);
>  			spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> +			integrity_d_instantiate(new, inode);
>  			security_d_instantiate(new, inode);
>  			d_rehash(dentry);
>  			d_move(new, dentry);
> @@ -1183,6 +1187,7 @@ struct dentry *d_splice_alias(struct ino
>  			dentry->d_inode = inode;
>  			fsnotify_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  			spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> +			integrity_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  			security_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  			d_rehash(dentry);
>  		}
> @@ -1733,6 +1738,7 @@ found:
>  	spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
>  out_nolock:
>  	if (actual == dentry) {
> +		integrity_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		security_d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		return NULL;
>  	}

I'm trying to find a non-trivial ->d_instantiate() implementation to
see how much overhead is being added to these performance-critical
codepaths, but afaict this patchset doesn't add one?

> Index: linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2/fs/ext3/xattr_security.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2.orig/fs/ext3/xattr_security.c
> +++ linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2/fs/ext3/xattr_security.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>  #include <linux/ext3_jbd.h>
>  #include <linux/ext3_fs.h>
>  #include <linux/security.h>
> +#include <linux/integrity.h>
>  #include "xattr.h"
>  
>  static size_t
> @@ -57,12 +58,19 @@ ext3_init_security(handle_t *handle, str
>  
>  	err = security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, &name, &value, &len);
>  	if (err) {
> +		/* Even if creation of the security xattr fails, must
> +		 * indicate this is a new inode. */
> +		integrity_inode_init_integrity(inode, dir, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>  		if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>  			return 0;
>  		return err;
>  	}
>  	err = ext3_xattr_set_handle(handle, inode, EXT3_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
>  				    name, value, len, 0);
> +
> +	integrity_inode_init_integrity(inode, dir, &name, &value, &len);
> +	err = ext3_xattr_set_handle(handle, inode, EXT3_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> +				    name, value, len, 0);

Can we put the integrity_inode_init_integrity() call into
security_inode_init_security() thus avoiding having to change lots of
filesystems?

>  	kfree(name);
>  	kfree(value);
>  	return err;
>
> ...
>
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/hash.h>
>  #include <linux/swap.h>
>  #include <linux/security.h>
> +#include <linux/integrity.h>
>  #include <linux/pagemap.h>
>  #include <linux/cdev.h>
>  #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> @@ -160,6 +161,14 @@ static struct inode *alloc_inode(struct 
>  		init_rwsem(&inode->i_alloc_sem);
>  		lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_alloc_sem, &sb->s_type->i_alloc_sem_key);
>  
> +		if (integrity_inode_alloc(inode)) {
> +			if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
> +				inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);
> +			else
> +				kmem_cache_free(inode_cachep, (inode));
> +			return NULL;
> +		}

This code is uncommented and integrity_inode_alloc() also is
uncommented.  People will want to know what's going on, please.

Again, where do we go to see how much overhead is being added to these
codepaths?

>  		mapping->a_ops = &empty_aops;
>   		mapping->host = inode;
>  		mapping->flags = 0;
> @@ -190,6 +199,7 @@ void destroy_inode(struct inode *inode) 
>  {
>  	BUG_ON(inode_has_buffers(inode));
>  	security_inode_free(inode);
> +	integrity_inode_free(inode);
>  	if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
>  		inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);
>  	else
>
> ...
>
> --- linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2.orig/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -653,6 +653,9 @@ struct inode {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
>  	void			*i_security;
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
> +	void			*i_integrity;
> +#endif

Does this _have_ to be a void*?  Something typesafe would be far
preferable.

>  	void			*i_private; /* fs or device private pointer */
>  };
>  
> ...
>
> @@ -521,6 +528,7 @@ extern int audit_signals;
>  #define audit_get_loginuid(t) (-1)
>  #define audit_get_sessionid(t) (-1)
>  #define audit_log_task_context(b) do { ; } while (0)
> +#define audit_log_inode_context(b, a) do { ; } while (0)

static inline C functions are preferable.

The ";" inside the {} is unneeded.

>  #define audit_ipc_obj(i) ({ 0; })
>  #define audit_ipc_set_perm(q,u,g,m) ({ 0; })
>  #define audit_bprm(p) ({ 0; })
> Index: linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
> ===================================================================
> --- /dev/null
> +++ linux-2.6.26-rc3-git2/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2008 IBM Corporation
> + * Author: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
> + *
> + *      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + *      it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + *      the Free Software Foundation, version 2 of the License.
> + *
> + * File: integrity_audit.c
> + * 	Audit calls for the integrity subsystem
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/audit.h>
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/integrity.h>
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_AUDIT
> +static int integrity_audit = 1;
> +
> +static int __init integrity_audit_setup(char *str)
> +{
> +	char *op;
> +
> +	integrity_audit = simple_strtol(str, NULL, 0);

This will treat "42foo" as valid input.  strict_strtoul() fixes that.

> +	op = integrity_audit ? "integrity_audit_enabled" :
> +	    "integrity_audit_not_enabled";
> +	integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS, NULL, NULL, NULL, op, 0);
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +
> +__setup("integrity_audit=", integrity_audit_setup);
> +#else
> +static int integrity_audit = 1;

This could be outside the ifdef.  If it is correct?

> +#endif
> +
> +void integrity_audit_msg(int audit_msgno, struct inode *inode,
> +			 const unsigned char *fname, char *op,
> +			 char *cause, int result)
> +{
> +	struct audit_buffer *ab;
> +	if (!integrity_audit && result == 1)
> +		return;

A newline between end-of-declarations and start-of-code is conventional.

> +	ab = audit_log_start(current->audit_context, GFP_ATOMIC, audit_msgno);
> +	audit_log_format(ab, "integrity: pid=%d uid=%u auid=%u",
> +			 current->pid, current->uid,
> +			 audit_get_loginuid(current));
> +	audit_log_task_context(ab);
> +	switch (audit_msgno) {
> +	case AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA:
> +	case AUDIT_INTEGRITY_METADATA:
> +	case AUDIT_INTEGRITY_PCR:
> +		audit_log_format(ab, " op=%s cause=%s", op, cause);
> +		break;
> +	case AUDIT_INTEGRITY_HASH:
> +		audit_log_format(ab, " op=%s hash=%s", op, cause);
> +		break;
> +	case AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS:
> +	default:
> +		audit_log_format(ab, " op=%s", op);
> +	}
> +	audit_log_format(ab, " comm=");
> +	audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, current->comm);
> +	if (fname) {
> +		audit_log_format(ab, " name=");
> +		audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, fname);
> +	}
> +	if (inode)
> +		audit_log_format(ab, " dev=%s ino=%lu",
> +				 inode->i_sb->s_id, inode->i_ino);
> +	audit_log_format(ab, " res=%d", result);
> +	audit_log_end(ab);
> +}
>
> ...
>
> +static struct integrity_measure_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
> +	{{NULL, NULL}, NULL, NULL, FILE_MMAP, MAY_EXEC},
> +	{{NULL, NULL}, NULL, NULL, BPRM_CHECK, MAY_EXEC},
> +	{{NULL, NULL}, NULL, NULL, INODE_PERMISSION, MAY_READ},
> +};

Can we use the

	.field = value,

format here please?  That will permit the omission of all the NULLs.

> +static struct list_head measure_default_rules;
> +static struct list_head measure_policy_rules;
> +static struct list_head *integrity_measure;
> +
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(integrity_measure_mutex);
> +
> +/**
> + * integrity_measure_rules - determine whether an inode matches the given rule.
> + * @rule - a pointer to a rule
> + * @inode - a pointer to an inode
> + * @func - LIM hook identifier
> + * @mask - requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC)
> + *
> + * Returns 1 on rule match, 0 on failure.
> + */

What a strange name.  integrity_match_rules()?

Could return a bool type, if you like that sort of thing.

> +static int integrity_measure_rules(struct integrity_measure_rule_entry *rule,
> +				   struct inode *inode, enum lim_hooks func,
> +				   int mask)
> +{
> +	int result = 1;
> +
> +	if (result && (rule->func != 0)) {

The test of the known-to-be-non-zero `result' is a bit weird, btu I
guess it makes sense in context, and the compiler should elide it OK.

> +		if (rule->func != func)
> +			result = 0;
> +	}
> +	if (result && (rule->mask != 0)) {
> +		if (rule->mask != mask)
> +			result = 0;
> +	}
> +	if (result && rule->lsm_subj_rule) {
> +		struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +		u32 sid;
> +
> +		security_task_getsecid(tsk, &sid);
> +		result = security_filter_rule_match(sid, AUDIT_SUBJ_USER,
> +						    AUDIT_EQUAL,
> +						    rule->lsm_subj_rule, NULL);
> +	}
> +	if (result && rule->lsm_obj_rule) {
> +		u32 osid;
> +
> +		security_inode_getsecid(inode, &osid);
> +		result = security_filter_rule_match(osid, AUDIT_OBJ_USER,
> +						    AUDIT_EQUAL,
> +						    rule->lsm_obj_rule, NULL);
> +	}
> +	return result;
> +}

However the shole function could be simplified and sped up (depending
on how smart the compiler is) via:

	if (rule->func && rule->func != func)
		return 0;
	if (rule->mask && rule->mask != mask)
		return 0;
	...
	return 1;
}

or similar.

> +/**
> + * integrity_measure_policy - base measure decision on: subj, obj, LIM hook,
> + * 			      and mask
> + * @inode - pointer to an inode
> + * @func - LIM hook identifier
> + * @mask - requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC)
> + *
> + * Returns 1 on rule match, 0 on failure.
> + */
> +int integrity_measure_policy(struct inode *inode, enum lim_hooks func, int mask)
> +{
> +	struct integrity_measure_rule_entry *entry;
> +	int rc = 0;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, integrity_measure, list) {
> +		rc = integrity_measure_rules(entry, inode, func, mask);
> +		if (rc) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			return rc;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	return rc;
> +}

"measure"?  Or "match"?

> +/**
> + * integrity_measure_policy_init - initialize the default and policy rules.
> + */
> +void integrity_measure_policy_init(void)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&measure_default_rules);
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(default_rules); i++)
> +		list_add(&default_rules[i].list, &measure_default_rules);
> +	integrity_measure = &measure_default_rules;
> +	mutex_init(&integrity_measure_mutex);

The mutex_init() is unneeded.

> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&measure_policy_rules);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * integrity_measure_policy_complete - wait to replace default_rules with
> + * 		a complete policy ruleset.
> + */
> +void integrity_measure_policy_complete(void)
> +{
> +	char *op = "policy_update";
> +	char *cause = "already exists";
> +	int result = 1;
> +
> +	if (integrity_measure == &measure_default_rules) {
> +		integrity_measure = &measure_policy_rules;
> +		cause = "complete";
> +		result = 0;
> +	}
> +	integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS, NULL,
> +			    NULL, op, cause, result);
> +}

Does it actually "wait"?

The name again doesn't seem to match the behaviour.  "foo_complete"
would mean "tell listeners that foo has completed".  What you have here
is a "foo_wait".

> +/**
> + * integrity_measure_rule_add - add integrity measure rules
> + * @subj - pointer to an LSM subject value
> + * @obj -  pointer to an LSM object value
> + * @func - LIM hook identifier
> + * @mask - requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC)
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success, an error code on failure.
> + */
> +int integrity_measure_rule_add(char *subj, char *obj, char *func, char *mask)
> +{
> +	struct integrity_measure_rule_entry *entry;
> +	int result = 0;
> +
> +	/* Prevent installed policy from changing */
> +	if (integrity_measure != &measure_default_rules) {
> +		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS, NULL,
> +				    NULL, "policy_update", "already exists", 1);
> +		return -EACCES;
> +	}
> +
> +	entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC);

GFP_ATOMIC is unreliable.  GFP_KERNEL is much much preferable, and I
suspect that it can be used here?

> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list);
> +	if (!result && subj)
> +		result = security_filter_rule_init(AUDIT_SUBJ_USER, AUDIT_EQUAL,
> +						   subj, &entry->lsm_subj_rule);
> +	if (!result && obj)
> +		result = security_filter_rule_init(AUDIT_OBJ_USER, AUDIT_EQUAL,
> +						   obj, &entry->lsm_obj_rule);
> +	if (!result && func) {
> +		if (strcmp(func, "INODE_PERMISSION") == 0)
> +			entry->func = INODE_PERMISSION;
> +		else if (strcmp(func, "FILE_MMAP") == 0)
> +			entry->func = FILE_MMAP;
> +		else if (strcmp(func, "BPRM_CHECK") == 0)
> +			entry->func = BPRM_CHECK;
> +		else
> +			result = -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +	if (!result && mask) {
> +		if (strcmp(mask, "MAY_EXEC") == 0)
> +			entry->mask = MAY_EXEC;
> +		else if (strcmp(mask, "MAY_WRITE") == 0)
> +			entry->mask = MAY_WRITE;
> +		else if (strcmp(mask, "MAY_READ") == 0)
> +			entry->mask = MAY_READ;
> +		else if (strcmp(mask, "MAY_APPEND") == 0)
> +			entry->mask = MAY_APPEND;
> +		else
> +			result = -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +	if (!result) {
> +		mutex_lock(&integrity_measure_mutex);
> +		list_add_tail(&entry->list, &measure_policy_rules);
> +		mutex_unlock(&integrity_measure_mutex);
> +	}
> +	return result;
> +}
>
> ...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists