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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:33:38 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] integrity: Prepare for having "ima" and "evm"
 available in "integrity" LSM

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:26:44AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> On 14/10/2022 19:59, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:40:01PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > This is not backward compatible
> > 
> > Why? Nothing will be running LSM hooks until init finishes, at which
> > point the integrity inode cache will be allocated. And ima and evm don't
> > start up until lateinit.
> > 
> > > , but can easily be fixed thanks to
> > > DEFINE_LSM().order
> > 
> > That forces the LSM to be enabled, which may not be desired?
> 
> This is not backward compatible because currently IMA is enabled
> independently of the "lsm=" cmdline, which means that for all installed
> systems using IMA and also with a custom "lsm=" cmdline, updating the kernel
> with this patch will (silently) disable IMA. Using ".order =
> LSM_ORDER_FIRST," should keep this behavior.

This isn't true. If "integrity" is removed from the lsm= line today, IMA
will immediately panic:

process_measurement():
  integrity_inode_get():
        if (!iint_cache)
                panic("%s: lsm=integrity required.\n", __func__);

and before v5.12 (where the panic was added), it would immediately NULL
deref. (And it took 3 years to even notice.)

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists