| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <71e9960a-cc98-a480-d65b-ac40f4de9a9c@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:24:38 -0700
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: Rename internal audit rule functions
On 6/29/2020 8:30 AM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> Rename IMA's internal audit rule functions from security_filter_rule_*()
> to ima_audit_rule_*(). This avoids polluting the security_* namespace,
> which is typically reserved for general security subsystem
> infrastructure, and better aligns the IMA function names with the names
> of the LSM hooks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
> Suggested-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
> ---
>
> Developed on top of next-integrity-testing, commit cd1d8603df60 ("IMA:
> Add audit log for failure conditions"), plus this patch series:
>
> [PATCH v2 00/11] ima: Fix rule parsing bugs and extend KEXEC_CMDLINE rule support
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20200626223900.253615-1-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
>
> This patch has dependencies on the above patch series.
>
> Tested with and without CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES enabled by attempting to
> load IMA policy with rules containing the subj_role=foo conditional.
> Build logs are clean in both configurations. The IMA policy was first
> loaded without and then with a valid AppArmor profile named "foo". The
> behavior is the same before and after this patch is applied:
>
> | CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES=n | CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES=y
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Without Profile | IMA policy load fails | IMA policy load fails
> With Profile | IMA policy load fails | IMA policy load succeeds
>
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 16 +++++++--------
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 30 +++++++++++++----------------
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> index ff2bf57ff0c7..5d62ee8319f4 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> @@ -419,24 +419,24 @@ static inline void ima_free_modsig(struct modsig *modsig)
> /* LSM based policy rules require audit */
> #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES
>
> -#define security_filter_rule_init security_audit_rule_init
> -#define security_filter_rule_free security_audit_rule_free
> -#define security_filter_rule_match security_audit_rule_match
> +#define ima_audit_rule_init security_audit_rule_init
> +#define ima_audit_rule_free security_audit_rule_free
> +#define ima_audit_rule_match security_audit_rule_match
>
> #else
>
> -static inline int security_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr,
> - void **lsmrule)
> +static inline int ima_audit_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr,
> + void **lsmrule)
> {
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> -static inline void security_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> +static inline void ima_audit_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> {
> }
>
> -static inline int security_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op,
> - void *lsmrule)
> +static inline int ima_audit_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op,
> + void *lsmrule)
> {
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 294323b36d06..60894656a4b7 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void ima_lsm_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
> - security_filter_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rule);
> + ima_audit_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rule);
> kfree(entry->lsm[i].args_p);
> }
> }
> @@ -308,10 +308,9 @@ static struct ima_rule_entry *ima_lsm_copy_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> */
> entry->lsm[i].args_p = NULL;
>
> - security_filter_rule_init(nentry->lsm[i].type,
> - Audit_equal,
> - nentry->lsm[i].args_p,
> - &nentry->lsm[i].rule);
> + ima_audit_rule_init(nentry->lsm[i].type, Audit_equal,
> + nentry->lsm[i].args_p,
> + &nentry->lsm[i].rule);
> if (!nentry->lsm[i].rule)
> pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
> entry->lsm[i].args_p);
> @@ -495,18 +494,16 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode,
> case LSM_OBJ_ROLE:
> case LSM_OBJ_TYPE:
> security_inode_getsecid(inode, &osid);
> - rc = security_filter_rule_match(osid,
> - rule->lsm[i].type,
> - Audit_equal,
> - rule->lsm[i].rule);
> + rc = ima_audit_rule_match(osid, rule->lsm[i].type,
> + Audit_equal,
> + rule->lsm[i].rule);
> break;
> case LSM_SUBJ_USER:
> case LSM_SUBJ_ROLE:
> case LSM_SUBJ_TYPE:
> - rc = security_filter_rule_match(secid,
> - rule->lsm[i].type,
> - Audit_equal,
> - rule->lsm[i].rule);
> + rc = ima_audit_rule_match(secid, rule->lsm[i].type,
> + Audit_equal,
> + rule->lsm[i].rule);
> default:
> break;
> }
> @@ -901,10 +898,9 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_rule_entry *entry,
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type = audit_type;
> - result = security_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type,
> - Audit_equal,
> - entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p,
> - &entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule);
> + result = ima_audit_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type, Audit_equal,
> + entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p,
> + &entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule);
> if (!entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule) {
> pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
> entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists