[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151223114721.GG5662@localhost>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:47:21 +0200
From: Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
james.l.morris@...cle.com, serge@...lyn.com,
linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IMA: policy can be updated zero times
On 15-12-22 16:50:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 04:40 PM, Petko Manolov wrote:
> >> Thanks, Sasha. By the time ima_update_policy() is called
> >> >ima_release_policy() has already output the policy update status
> >> >message. I guess an empty policy could be considered a valid policy.
> >> >Could you add a msg indicating that the new policy was empty?
> >
> > As far as I can say we can't get to ima_update_policy() with empty
> > ima_temp_rules because ima_write_policy() will set valid_policy to 0 in case
> > of an empty rule. I'll double check it tomorrow, but please you do that
> > too.
>
> This is based on an actual crash rather than code analysis.
I was able to reproduce the crash with: echo "" > /sys/kernel/security/ima/policy
It turns out ima_parse_add_rule() returns 1, even though the string is empty
This logic may be part of "empty policy is a valid policy" or something else.
As it is more dangerous to change the behavior at this point i assume your patch
is the right solution for the problem.
Acked-by: Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>
Mimi, shall we change ima_parse_add_rule's behavior in the future or it's too
much work?
cheers,
Petko
--
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