linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:25:02 -0800
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     eric.snowberg@...cle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@...gle.com,
        sashal@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys

On 12/20/2019 11:01 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

Hi Mimi,

>> If the kernel is built with both CONFIG_IMA and
>> CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE enabled then the IMA policy
>> must be applied as a custom policy. Not providing a custom policy
>> in the above configuration would result in asymmeteric keys being queued
>> until a custom policy is loaded. This is by design.
> 
> I didn't notice the "This is by design" here, referring to the memory
> never being freed.  "This is by design" was suppose to refer to
> requiring a custom policy for measuring keys.
> 
> For now, these two patches are queued in the next-integrity-testing
> branch, but I would appreciate your addressing not freeing the memory
> associated with the keys, if a custom policy is not loaded.
> 
> Please note that I truncated the 2/2 patch description, as it repeats
> the existing verification example in commit ("2b60c0ecedf8 IMA: Read
> keyrings= option from the IMA policy").
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Mimi
> 

Sure - I am fine with truncating the 2/2 patch description. Thanks for 
doing that.

Regarding "Freeing the queued keys if custom policy is not loaded":

Shall I create a new patch set to address that and have that be reviewed 
independent of this patch set?

Like you'd suggested earlier, we can wait for a certain time, after IMA 
is initialized, and free the queue if a custom policy was not loaded.

Please let me know.

thanks,
  -lakshmi