linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] IMA: generalize keyring specific measurement constructs

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: <71db5ccf-c9b3-68b0-4d48-93e2b1ba0d98@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:38:13 -0700
From:   Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
        gmazyland@...il.com
Cc:     tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com, sashal@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] IMA: generalize keyring specific measurement
 constructs

Thanks Mimi for your overall feedback on this series.
Really appreciate it.

On 2020-10-22 12:39 p.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Tushar,
> 
> On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 12:20 -0700, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> index fe1df373c113..31a772d8a86b 100644
>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> @@ -451,15 +451,19 @@ int ima_lsm_policy_change(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long event,
>>   }
>>   
>>   /**
>> - * ima_match_keyring - determine whether the keyring matches the measure rule
>> - * @rule: a pointer to a rule
>> - * @keyring: name of the keyring to match against the measure rule
>> + * ima_match_rule_data - determine whether the given func_data matches
>> + *			 the measure rule data
>> + * @rule: IMA policy rule
>> + * @opt_list: rule data to match func_data against
>> + * @func_data: data to match against the measure rule data
>>    * @cred: a pointer to a credentials structure for user validation
>>    *
>> - * Returns true if keyring matches one in the rule, false otherwise.
>> + * Returns true if func_data matches one in the rule, false otherwise.
>>    */
>> -static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>> -			      const char *keyring, const struct cred *cred)
>> +static bool ima_match_rule_data(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>> +				const struct ima_rule_opt_list *opt_list,
>> +				const char *func_data,
>> +				const struct cred *cred)
>>   {
>>   	bool matched = false;
>>   	size_t i;
>> @@ -467,14 +471,14 @@ static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>>   	if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && !rule->uid_op(cred->uid, rule->uid))
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> -	if (!rule->keyrings)
>> +	if (!opt_list)
>>   		return true;
> 
> The opt_list should be based on rule->func.  There shouldn't be a need
> to pass it as a variable.
> 
> Mimi
Makes sense. Will do. Thanks Mimi.
~Tushar
> 
>>   
>> -	if (!keyring)
>> +	if (!func_data)
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> -	for (i = 0; i < rule->keyrings->count; i++) {
>> -		if (!strcmp(rule->keyrings->items[i], keyring)) {
>> +	for (i = 0; i < opt_list->count; i++) {
>> +		if (!strcmp(opt_list->items[i], func_data)) {
>>   			matched = true;
>>   			break;
>>   		}