[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629141614.GD4694@sequoia>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:16:14 -0500
From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva02@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] ima: Move validation of the keyrings
conditional into ima_validate_rule()
On 2020-06-27 16:49:46, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 6/26/20 3:38 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>
> > Use ima_validate_rule() to ensure that the combination of a hook
> > function and the keyrings conditional is valid and that the keyrings
> > conditional is not specified without an explicit KEY_CHECK func
> > conditional. This is a code cleanup and has no user-facing change.
>
> In addition to checking for func=KEY_CHECK and the keyrings conditional, the
> patch also validates the flags for other IMA hooks (such as
> KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK, POLICY_CHECK, etc.) Would be good to mention that in the
> patch description.
It actually doesn't do any additional validation of other IMA hooks at
this time. That check on entry->flags is an allowlist of every possible
conditional flag except IMA_KEYRINGS. The ima_parse_rule() function is
already validating all of these conditional flags.
Tyler
>
> -lakshmi
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> >
> > * v2
> > - Allowed IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED, IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO,
> > IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED, and IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST conditionals to be
> > present in the rule entry flags for non-buffer hook functions.
> >
> > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > index 8cdca2399d59..43d49ad958fb 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > @@ -1000,6 +1000,15 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> > case KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK:
> > case KEXEC_INITRAMFS_CHECK:
> > case POLICY_CHECK:
> > + if (entry->flags & ~(IMA_FUNC | IMA_MASK | IMA_FSMAGIC |
> > + IMA_UID | IMA_FOWNER | IMA_FSUUID |
> > + IMA_INMASK | IMA_EUID | IMA_PCR |
> > + IMA_FSNAME | IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED |
> > + IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO |
> > + IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED |
> > + IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > break;
> > case KEXEC_CMDLINE:
> > if (entry->action & ~(MEASURE | DONT_MEASURE))
> > @@ -1027,7 +1036,8 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> > default:
> > return false;
> > }
> > - }
> > + } else if (entry->flags & IMA_KEYRINGS)
> > + return false;
> > return true;
> > }
> > @@ -1209,7 +1219,6 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> > keyrings_len = strlen(args[0].from) + 1;
> > if ((entry->keyrings) ||
> > - (entry->func != KEY_CHECK) ||
> > (keyrings_len < 2)) {
> > result = -EINVAL;
> > break;
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists