linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] ima: make process_buffer

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:   Sat, 19 Oct 2019 21:21:46 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
        Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@...ula.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@...ibm.com>,
        Eric Ricther <erichte@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
        Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva02@...il.com>,
        Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] ima: make process_buffer_measurement() generic

On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 14:06 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> process_buffer_measurement() is limited to measuring the kexec boot
> command line. This patch makes process_buffer_measurement() more
> generic, allowing it to measure other types of buffer data (e.g.
> blacklisted binary hashes or key hashes).

based on "func".
> 
> This patch modifies the function to conditionally retrieve the policy
> defined pcr and template based on the func.

This would be done in a subsequent patch, not here.

> @@ -642,19 +642,38 @@ static void process_buffer_measurement(const void *buf, int size,
>  					    .filename = eventname,
>  					    .buf = buf,
>  					    .buf_len = size};
> -	struct ima_template_desc *template_desc = NULL;
> +	struct ima_template_desc *template = NULL;
>  	struct {
>  		struct ima_digest_data hdr;
>  		char digest[IMA_MAX_DIGEST_SIZE];
>  	} hash = {};
>  	int violation = 0;
> -	int pcr = CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_PCR_IDX;
>  	int action = 0;
> +	u32 secid;
>  
> -	action = ima_get_action(NULL, cred, secid, 0, KEXEC_CMDLINE, &pcr,
> -				&template_desc);
> -	if (!(action & IMA_MEASURE))
> -		return;
> +	if (func) {
> +		security_task_getsecid(current, &secid);
> +		action = ima_get_action(NULL, current_cred(), secid, 0, func,
> +					&pcr, &template);
> +		if (!(action & IMA_MEASURE))
> +			return;
> +	}
> +

Initially there is no need to test "func".  A specific "func" test
would be added as needed. 

Mimi