Message-ID: <b08ae82102f35936427bf138085484f75532cff1.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 05 Aug 2020 14:15:13 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        snitzer@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com, agk@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
        corbet@....net, nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, serge@...lyn.com,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        axboe@...nel.dk, mdsakib@...rosoft.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eparis@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        jaskarankhurana@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement
 LSM (IPE)

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0700, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > I'll leave Mimi to answer, but really this is exactly the question that
> > should have been asked before writing IPE.  However, since we have the
> > cart before the horse, let me break the above down into two specific
> > questions.
> 
> The question is valid and it was asked. We decided to first prototype what 
> we needed and then evaluate if it should be integrated with IMA. We 
> discussed this plan in person with Mimi (at LSS-NA in 2019), and presented 
> a more mature version of IPE to LSS-NA in 2020, with the expectation that 
> such a discussion may come up (it did not).

When we first spoke the concepts weren't fully formulated, at least to
me.
> 
> These patches are still part of this process and 'RFC' status.
> 
> >    1. Could we implement IPE in IMA (as in would extensions to IMA cover
> >       everything).  I think the answers above indicate this is a "yes".
> 
> It could be done, if needed.
> 
> >    2. Should we extend IMA to implement it?  This is really whether from a
> >       usability standpoint two seperate LSMs would make sense to cover the
> >       different use cases.
> 
> One issue here is that IMA is fundamentally a measurement & appraisal 
> scheme which has been extended to include integrity enforcement. IPE was 
> designed from scratch to only perform integrity enforcement. As such, it 
> is a cleaner design -- "do one thing and do it well" is a good design 
> pattern.
> 
> In our use-case, we utilize _both_ IMA and IPE, for attestation and code 
> integrity respectively. It is useful to be able to separate these 
> concepts. They really are different:
> 
> - Code integrity enforcement ensures that code running locally is of known 
> provenance and has not been modified prior to execution.
> 
> - Attestation is about measuring the health of a system and having that 
> measurement validated by a remote system. (Local attestation is useless).
> 
> I'm not sure there is value in continuing to shoe-horn both of these into 
> IMA.

True, IMA was originally limited to measurement and attestation, but
most of the original EVM concepts were subsequently included in IMA. 
(Remember, Reiner Sailer wrote the original IMA, which I inherited.  I
was originially working on EVM code integrity.)  From a naming
perspective including EVM code integrity in IMA was a mistake.  My
thinking at the time was that as IMA was already calculating the file
hash, instead of re-calculating the file hash for integrity, calculate
the file hash once and re-use it for multiple things - measurement, 
integrity, and audit.   At the same time define a single system wide
policy.

When we first started working on IMA, EVM, trusted, and encrypted keys,
the general kernel community didn't see a need for any of it.  Thus, a
lot of what was accomplished has been accomplished without the backing
of the real core filesystem people.

If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need
for fs-verity.   Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems,
which makes validating file integrity so much easier.  From the
beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in
the measurement list.  (I thought someone signed on to add that support
to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.)

Going forward I see a lot of what we've accomplished being incorporated
into the filesystems.  When IMA will be limited to defining a system
wide policy, I'll have completed my job.

Mimi

> 
> >  I've got to say the least attractive thing
> >       about separation is the fact that you now both have a policy parser.
> >        You've tried to differentiate yours by making it more Kconfig
> >       based, but policy has a way of becoming user space supplied because
> >       the distros hate config options, so I think you're going to end up
> >       with a policy parser very like IMAs.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists