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]

Message-ID: <1595352376.5311.8.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:26:16 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@...hat.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, 2020-07-20 at 12:38 -0300, Bruno Meneguele wrote:
> 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.

Ok.  FYI, it's now in next-integrity.

Mimi