linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] module: add syscall to load module from fd

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 Sep 2012 10:41:58 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] module: add syscall to load module from fd

On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 13:08 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 17:04 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On 09/06/2012 11:13 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> >> Instead of (or in addition to) kernel module signing, being able to reason
> >> >> about the origin of a kernel module would be valuable in situations
> >> >> where an OS already trusts a specific file system, file, etc, due to
> >> >> things like security labels or an existing root of trust to a partition
> >> >> through things like dm-verity.
> >> >>
> >> >> This introduces a new syscall (currently only on x86), similar to
> >> >> init_module, that has only two arguments. The first argument is used as
> >> >> a file descriptor to the module and the second argument is a pointer to
> >> >> the NULL terminated string of module arguments.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Please use the standard naming convention, which is an f- prefix (i.e. 
> >> > finit_module()).
> >> 
> >> Good point; I just did a replace here.
> >
> > Have you pushed out the changes?  And if so, to where?
> 
> No, I kept them in my patch series but out of linux-next, since I
> thought you disliked the placement of the security hooks?

I thought about it some more.  The call to
security_kernel_module_from_file() from copy_module_from_user() doesn't
provide any information, not the buffer contents nor the signature.  The
only thing IMA-appraisal can do is to fail the request with
INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN.  This is reflected in the IMA-appraisal patch I
posted http://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=134739023306344&w=2.

Please add my Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com> 

thanks,

Mimi

--
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/