[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200709061911.954326-7-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:19:05 -0500
From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva02@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 06/12] ima: Fail rule parsing when the KEY_CHECK hook is combined with an invalid cond
The KEY_CHECK function only supports the uid, pcr, and keyrings
conditionals. Make this clear at policy load so that IMA policy authors
don't assume that other conditionals are supported.
Fixes: 5808611cccb2 ("IMA: Add KEY_CHECK func to measure keys")
Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
---
* v3
- Added Lakshmi's Reviewed-by
- Adjust for the indentation change introduced in patch #4
* v2
- No change
security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index 1c64bd6f1728..81da02071d41 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -1023,6 +1023,13 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
if (entry->action & ~(MEASURE | DONT_MEASURE))
return false;
+ if (entry->flags & ~(IMA_FUNC | IMA_UID | IMA_PCR |
+ IMA_KEYRINGS))
+ return false;
+
+ if (ima_rule_contains_lsm_cond(entry))
+ return false;
+
break;
default:
return false;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists