linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ima,fuse: introduce new fs flag FS_NO_IMA

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]

Message-Id: <1516310702.3772.11.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:25:02 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...il.com>,
        Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>
Cc:     iago@...volk.io, dongsu@...volk.io, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ima,fuse: introduce new fs flag FS_NO_IMA_CACHE

On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:10 +0100, Alban Crequy wrote:
> From: Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>
> 
> This patch forces files to be re-measured, re-appraised and re-audited
> on file systems with the feature flag FS_NO_IMA_CACHE. In that way,
> cached integrity results won't be used.
> 
> For now, this patch adds the new flag only FUSE filesystems. This is
> needed because the userspace FUSE process can change the underlying
> files at any time.

Thanks, it's working nicely. 


> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 511fbaabf624..2bd7e73ebc2a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -2075,6 +2075,7 @@ struct file_system_type {
>  #define FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA	2
>  #define FS_HAS_SUBTYPE		4
>  #define FS_USERNS_MOUNT		8	/* Can be mounted by userns root */
> +#define FS_NO_IMA_CACHE		16	/* Force IMA to re-measure, re-appraise, re-audit files */
>  #define FS_RENAME_DOES_D_MOVE	32768	/* FS will handle d_move() during rename() internally. */
>  	struct dentry *(*mount) (struct file_system_type *, int,
>  		       const char *, void *);
> 

Since IMA is going to need another flag, we probably should have a
consistent prefix (eg. "FS_IMA").  Maybe rename this flag to
FS_IMA_NO_CACHE.  I'm also wondering if this change should be
separated from the IMA change.

Mimi