lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:53:23 -0200
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 10/18] ima: Store measurement after appraisal

When module-style signatures appended at the end of files are supported for
IMA appraisal, the code will fallback to the xattr signature if the
appended one fails to verify.

The problem is that we don't know whether we need to fallback to the xattr
signature until the appraise step, and by then the measure step was already
completed and would need to be done again in case the template includes the
signature.

To avoid this problem, do the appraisal first so that the correct signature
is stored by the template in the measure step.

Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index 747a4fd9e2de..8e96450e27f5 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -242,12 +242,12 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, char *buf, loff_t size,
 	if (!pathbuf)	/* ima_rdwr_violation possibly pre-fetched */
 		pathname = ima_d_path(&file->f_path, &pathbuf, filename);
 
-	if (action & IMA_MEASURE)
-		ima_store_measurement(iint, file, pathname,
-				      xattr_value, xattr_len, pcr);
 	if (rc == 0 && (action & IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK))
 		rc = ima_appraise_measurement(func, iint, file, pathname,
 					      xattr_value, xattr_len, opened);
+	if (action & IMA_MEASURE)
+		ima_store_measurement(iint, file, pathname,
+				      xattr_value, xattr_len, pcr);
 	if (action & IMA_AUDIT)
 		ima_audit_measurement(iint, pathname);
 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists