linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Add embedded peripheral firmware support

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:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:07:01 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
        Dave Olsthoorn <dave@...aar.me>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, mfuzzey@...keon.com,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        nbroeking@...com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Add embedded peripheral firmware support

On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 17:09 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 23-04-18 23:11, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Hans, please see use of READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER, we'll need a new ID
> > and security for this type of request so IMA can reject it if the policy is
> > configured for it.
> 
> Hmm, interesting, actually it seems like the whole existence
> of READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER is a mistake, the IMA
> framework really does not care if we are loading the firmware
> into memory allocated by the firmware-loader code, or into
> memory allocated by the device-driver requesting the firmware.
> 
> As such the current IMA code (from v4.17-rc2) actually does
> not handle READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER at all, 

Right, it doesn't yet address READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER, but
should.

Depending on whether the device requesting the firmware has access to
the DMA memory, before the signature verification, will determine how
IMA-appraisal addresses READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER.

Mimi

> here
> are bits of code from: security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:
> 
> static int read_idmap[READING_MAX_ID] = {
>          [READING_FIRMWARE] = FIRMWARE_CHECK,
>          [READING_MODULE] = MODULE_CHECK,
>          [READING_KEXEC_IMAGE] = KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK,
>          [READING_KEXEC_INITRAMFS] = KEXEC_INITRAMFS_CHECK,
>          [READING_POLICY] = POLICY_CHECK
> };
> 
> int ima_post_read_file(struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size,
> 	...
>          if (!file && read_id == READING_FIRMWARE) {
>                  if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) &&
>                      (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE))
>                          return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */
>                  return 0;
>          }
> 
> Which show that the IMA code is not handling
> READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER as it should (I believe it
> should handle it the same as READING_FIRMWARE).
> 
> Now we could fix that, but the only user of
> READING_FIRMWARE_PREALLOC_BUFFER is the code which originally
> introduced it:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9162011/
> 
> So I believe it might be better to instead replace it
> with just READING_FIRMWARE and find another way to tell
> kernel_read_file() that there is a pre-allocated buffer,
> perhaps the easiest way there is that  *buf must be
> NULL when the caller wants kernel_read_file() to
> vmalloc the mem. This would of course require auditing
> all callers that the buf which the pass in is initialized
> to NULL.
> 
> Either way adding a third READING_FIRMWARE_FOO to the
> kernel_read_file_id enum seems like a bad idea, from
> the IMA pov firmware is firmware.
> 
> What this whole exercise has shown me though is that
> I need to call security_kernel_post_read_file() when
> loading EFI embedded firmware. I will add a call to
> security_kernel_post_read_file() for v4 of the patch-set.
> 
> > Please Cc Kees in future patches.
> 
> Will do.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
>