linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] powerpc: add support to initialize ima policy rules

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2d4a1890-5fb0-3bef-cd78-8cb75ca73076@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:12:09 -0400
From:   Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Eric Ricther <erichte@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@...ula.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
        Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@...ibm.com>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] powerpc: add support to initialize ima policy
 rules



On 10/02/2019 05:49 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 12:07 -0400, Nayna wrote:
>> On 09/30/2019 09:04 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>> Hello,
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..39401b67f19e
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019 IBM Corporation
>>>> + * Author: Nayna Jain
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <linux/ima.h>
>>>> +#include <asm/secure_boot.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +bool arch_ima_get_secureboot(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return is_powerpc_os_secureboot_enabled();
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Defines IMA appraise rules for secureboot */
>>>> +static const char *const arch_rules[] = {
>>>> +	"appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig",
>>>> +#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG)
>>>> +	"appraise func=MODULE_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig",
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +	NULL
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Returns the relevant IMA arch policies based on the system secureboot state.
>>>> + */
>>>> +const char *const *arch_get_ima_policy(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (is_powerpc_os_secureboot_enabled())
>>>> +		return arch_rules;
>>>> +
>>>> +	return NULL;
>>>> +}
>>> If CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is enabled but module signatures aren't enforced,
>>> then IMA won't enforce module signature either. x86's
>>> arch_get_ima_policy() calls set_module_sig_enforced(). Doesn't the
>>> powerpc version need to do that as well?
>>>
>>> On the flip side, if module signatures are enforced by the module
>>> subsystem then IMA will verify the signature a second time since there's
>>> no sharing of signature verification results between the module
>>> subsystem and IMA (this was observed by Mimi).
>>>
>>> IMHO this is a minor issue, since module loading isn't a hot path and
>>> the duplicate work shouldn't impact anything. But it could be avoided by
>>> having a NULL entry in arch_rules, which arch_get_ima_policy() would
>>> dynamically update with the "appraise func=MODULE_CHECK" rule if
>>> is_module_sig_enforced() is true.
>> Thanks Thiago for reviewing.  I am wondering that this will give two
>> meanings for NULL. Can we do something like below, there are possibly
>> two options ?
>>
>> 1. Set IMA_APPRAISED in the iint->flags if is_module_sig_enforced().
>>
>> OR
>>
>> 2. Let ima_get_action() check for is_module_sig_enforced() when policy
>> is appraise and func is MODULE_CHECK.
> I'm a bit hesitant about mixing the module subsystem signature
> verification method with the IMA measure "template=ima-modsig" rules.
>   Does it actually work?
>
> We can at least limit verifying the same appended signature twice to
> when "module.sig_enforce" is specified on the boot command line, by
> changing "!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG)" to test
> "CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE".

Yes this seems to be a better idea. I have implemented this in the v7 
version of the ima_arch version.

Thanks & Regards,
      - Nayna