[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110520152552.GB31061@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 10:25:52 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...ia.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/21] ima: move ima_file_free before releasing the
file
Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 08:40 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> > > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 17:06 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> > > > > Integrity appraisal measures files on file_free and stores the file
> > > > > measurement as an xattr. Measure the file before releasing it.
> > > >
> > > > Can you put a bit more in the commit msg about why? What's magic
> > > > about the fs-specific release function?
> > >
> > > ima_file_free(), called on __fput(), currently flags files that have
> > > changed, so that the file is re-measured. However, for appraising a
> > > files's integrity, flagging the file is not enough. The file's
> > > security.ima xattr must be updated to reflect any changes. This patch
> > > moves releasing the file to after calculating the new file hash.
> >
> > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I still don't understand (even though
> > apparently I used to :) why the fs release is magic here. The
> > dropping of the writelock comes later, so no file will be able to
> > open the file for execute or write until that point, meaning that
> > won't be happening without a re-measure with or without this patch.
> >
> > So you must be thinking something about general opens(), but I
> > don't believe that file_operations->release makes a difference to
> > another tasks's ability to open the file, nor to the writing out
> > of changed contents.
> >
> > security_file_free() doesn't appear to be hooked by ima or evm,
> > and if a security module changes its security.X xattr you'll
> > end up re-measuring the xattrs anyway.
> >
> > So I'm still missing something, sorry :)
> >
> > -serge
>
> No, my mistake. IMA-appraisal, not EVM, needs to be able to read the
> file in order to re-calculate the hash and update the 'security.ima'
> extended attribute. Will move this patch to the IMA patchset.
Gotcha, thanks. Please do keep my ack on it :)
-serge
--
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