linux-kernel - RE: [GIT PULL] integrity subsystem updates for v5.8

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]

Date:   Sun, 7 Jun 2020 20:14:28 +0000
From:   Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Silviu Vlasceanu <Silviu.Vlasceanu@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] integrity subsystem updates for v5.8

> From: linux-integrity-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-integrity-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:59 PM
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:03 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > The main changes are extending the TPM 2.0 PCR banks with bank
> > specific file hashes, calculating the "boot_aggregate" based on other
> > TPM PCR banks, using the default IMA hash algorithm, instead of SHA1,
> > as the basis for the cache hash table key, and preventing the mprotect
> > syscall to circumvent an IMA mmap appraise policy rule.
> 
> I'm not sure why I didn't notice this during my test builds, but this
> results in a new warning:
> 
>   WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x496264): Section mismatch in
> reference from the function ima_calc_boot_aggregate() to the function
> .init.text:ima_pcrread()
>   The function ima_calc_boot_aggregate() references
>   the function __init ima_pcrread().
>   This is often because ima_calc_boot_aggregate lacks a __init
>   annotation or the annotation of ima_pcrread is wrong.
> 
> and I think the warning is real - and the problem is real, not just a
> missing annotation.
> 
> It looks like ima_calc_boot_aggregate() may be called not only at init
> time (ima_eventdigest_init() is referenced from "struct
> ima_template_field supported_fields[]", for example)
> 
> So calling an __init function would be very wrong, because it might be
> gone by that time.
> 
> Hmm?

Right, I also missed it. Will send a patch soon.

Roberto

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
Managing Director: Li Peng, Li Jian, Shi Yanli