linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] ima: move APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM dependency on ARCH

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:38:41 -0300
From:   Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@...hat.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        erichte@...ux.ibm.com, nayna@...ux.ibm.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] ima: move APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM dependency on
 ARCH_POLICY to runtime

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:56:55AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 10:40 -0400, Nayna wrote:
> > On 7/13/20 12:48 PM, Bruno Meneguele wrote:
> > > The IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM config allows enabling different "ima_appraise="
> > > modes - log, fix, enforce - at run time, but not when IMA architecture
> > > specific policies are enabled.  This prevents properly labeling the
> > > filesystem on systems where secure boot is supported, but not enabled on the
> > > platform.  Only when secure boot is actually enabled should these IMA
> > > appraise modes be disabled.
> > >
> > > This patch removes the compile time dependency and makes it a runtime
> > > decision, based on the secure boot state of that platform.
> > >
> > > Test results as follows:
> > >
> > > -> x86-64 with secure boot enabled
> > >
> > > [    0.015637] Kernel command line: <...> ima_policy=appraise_tcb ima_appraise=fix
> > > [    0.015668] ima: Secure boot enabled: ignoring ima_appraise=fix boot parameter option
> > >
> 
> Is it common to have two colons in the same line?  Is the colon being
> used as a delimiter when parsing the kernel logs?  Should the second
> colon be replaced with a hyphen?  (No need to repost.  I'll fix it
> up.)
>  

AFAICS it has been used without any limitations, e.g:

PM: hibernation: Registered nosave memory: [mem 0x00000000-0x00000fff]
clocksource: hpet: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 133484873504 ns
microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x08701013
Lockdown: modprobe: unsigned module loading is restricted; see man kernel_lockdown.7
...

I'd say we're fine using it.

> 
> > > -> powerpc with secure boot disabled
> > >
> > > [    0.000000] Kernel command line: <...> ima_policy=appraise_tcb ima_appraise=fix
> > > [    0.000000] Secure boot mode disabled
> > >
> > > -> Running the system without secure boot and with both options set:
> > >
> > > CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=y
> > > CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=y
> > >
> > > Audit prompts "missing-hash" but still allow execution and, consequently,
> > > filesystem labeling:
> > >
> > > type=INTEGRITY_DATA msg=audit(07/09/2020 12:30:27.778:1691) : pid=4976
> > > uid=root auid=root ses=2
> > > subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 op=appraise_data
> > > cause=missing-hash comm=bash name=/usr/bin/evmctl dev="dm-0" ino=493150
> > > res=no
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > Fixes: d958083a8f64 ("x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86")
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@...hat.com>
> > 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Nayna Jain<nayna@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Tested-by: Nayna Jain<nayna@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> Thanks, Nayna.
> 
> Mimi
> 

-- 
bmeneg 
PGP Key: http://bmeneg.com/pubkey.txt

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)