Date:   Sun, 31 May 2020 21:05:42 -0700
From:   Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        paulus@...ba.org, frowand.list@...il.com, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, allison@...utok.net,
        kstewart@...uxfoundation.org, takahiro.akashi@...aro.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vincenzo.frascino@....com,
        masahiroy@...nel.org, james.morse@....com, bhsharma@...hat.com,
        mbrugger@...e.com, hsinyi@...omium.org, tao.li@...o.com,
        christophe.leroy@....fr, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com,
        balajib@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Add support for using reserved memory for ima
 buffer pass


On 5/22/20 9:08 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Hello Prakhar,
> 
> Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva@...ux.microsoft.com> writes:
> 
>> On 5/12/20 4:05 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 10:50:04PM -0700, Prakhar Srivastava wrote:
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> Please don't top post.
>>>
>>>> This patch set currently only address the Pure DT implementation.
>>>> EFI and ACPI implementations will be posted in subsequent patchsets.
>>>>
>>>> The logs are intended to be carried over the kexec and once read the
>>>> logs are no longer needed and in prior conversation with James(
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/0053eb68-0905-4679-c97a-00c5cb6f1abb@arm.com/)
>>>> the apporach of using a chosen node doesn't
>>>> support the case.
>>>>
>>>> The DT entries make the reservation permanent and thus doesnt need kernel
>>>> segments to be used for this, however using a chosen-node with
>>>> reserved memory only changes the node information but memory still is
>>>> reserved via reserved-memory section.
>>>
>>> I think Mark's point was whether it needs to be permanent. We don't
>>> hardcode the initrd address for example.
>>>
>> Thankyou for clarifying my misunderstanding, i am modelling this keeping to the
>> TPM log implementation that uses a reserved memory. I will rev up the version
>> with chosen-node support.
>> That will make the memory reservation free after use.
> 
> Nice. Do you intend to use the same property that powerpc uses
> (linux,ima-kexec-buffer)?
> 
I was naming it ima-buffer, but naming is not a huge concern.
I will use linux,ima-kexec-buffer.
>>>> On 5/5/20 2:59 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> Hi Prakhar,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:38:27PM -0700, Prakhar Srivastava wrote:
>>>>>> IMA during kexec(kexec file load) verifies the kernel signature and measures
>>>
>>> What's IMAIMA is a LSM attempting to detect if files have been accidentally or
>> maliciously altered, both remotely and locally, it can also be used
>> to appraise a file's measurement against a "good" value stored as an extended
>> attribute, and enforce local file integrity.
>>
>> IMA also validates and measures the signers of the kernel and initrd
>> during kexec. The measurements are extended to PCR 10(configurable) and the logs
>> stored in memory, however once kexec'd the logs are lost. Kexec is used as
>> secondary boot loader in may use cases and loosing the signer
>> creates a security hole.
>>
>> This patch is an implementation to carry over the logs and making it
>> possible to remotely validate the signers of the kernel and initrd. Such a
>> support exits only in powerpc.
>> This patch makes the carry over of logs architecture independent and puts the
>> complexity in a driver.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the code at arch/powerpc/kexec/ima.c isn't actually
> powerpc-specific. It could be moved to an arch-independent directory and
> used by any other architecture which supports device trees.
> 
> I think that's the simplest way forward. And to be honest I'm still
> trying to understand why you didn't take that approach. Did you try it
> and hit some obstacle or noticed a disadvantage for your use case?
> 
The approach i have in this patch set is to provide an abstraction layer 
that can be called from any architecture.
However taking a deeper look only the setup dtb is probably architecture
specific, only because the architecture specific kexec sets up the 
device tree. I can also move the code up in security/ima. However i do
have some concerns with layering. I am hoping you can provide me with 
some guidance in this aspect, i will send you the patch i am working on
to get some early feedback.

Thanks,
Prakhar Srivastava


> --
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists