linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] ima: Implement ima_inode

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: <CACYkzJ7Oi8wXf=9a-e=fFHJirRbD=u47z+3+M2cRTCy_1fwtgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Nov 2020 01:08:40 +0100
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] ima: Implement ima_inode_hash

[...]

> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py b/scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py
> > index c5bc947a70ad..add7fcb32dcd 100755
> > --- a/scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py
> > +++ b/scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py
> > @@ -478,6 +478,7 @@ class PrinterHelpers(Printer):
> >               'struct tcp_request_sock',
> >               'struct udp6_sock',
> >               'struct task_struct',
> > +            'struct inode',
>
> This change (bpf_helpers_doc.py) belongs to patch #2.

Indeed, I missed it during a rebase. Thanks!


>
> >               'struct path',
> >               'struct btf_ptr',
> >       }
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > index 2d1af8899cab..1dd2123b5b43 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > @@ -501,37 +501,17 @@ int ima_file_check(struct file *file, int mask)
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ima_file_check);
> >
> > -/**
> > - * ima_file_hash - return the stored measurement if a file has been hashed and
> > - * is in the iint cache.
> > - * @file: pointer to the file
> > - * @buf: buffer in which to store the hash
> > - * @buf_size: length of the buffer
> > - *
> > - * On success, return the hash algorithm (as defined in the enum hash_algo).
> > - * If buf is not NULL, this function also outputs the hash into buf.
> > - * If the hash is larger than buf_size, then only buf_size bytes will be copied.
> > - * It generally just makes sense to pass a buffer capable of holding the largest
> > - * possible hash: IMA_MAX_DIGEST_SIZE.
> > - * The file hash returned is based on the entire file, including the appended
> > - * signature.
> > - *
> > - * If IMA is disabled or if no measurement is available, return -EOPNOTSUPP.
> > - * If the parameters are incorrect, return -EINVAL.
> > - */
> > -int ima_file_hash(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> > +static int __ima_inode_hash(struct inode *inode, char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> >   {
> > -     struct inode *inode;
> >       struct integrity_iint_cache *iint;
> >       int hash_algo;
> >
> > -     if (!file)
> > +     if (!inode)
> >               return -EINVAL;
>
> Based on original code, for ima_file_hash(), inode cannot be NULL,
> so I prefer to remove this change here and add !inode test in
> ima_inode_hash.

Makes sense. Thanks!

>
>
> >

[...]


> > + * If the parameters are incorrect, return -EINVAL.
> > + */
> > +int ima_inode_hash(struct inode *inode, char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> > +{
>
> Add
>         if (!inode)
>                 return -EINVAL;

Done.

>
>
> > +     return __ima_inode_hash(inode, buf, buf_size);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ima_inode_hash);
> > +
> >   /**
> >    * ima_post_create_tmpfile - mark newly created tmpfile as new
> >    * @file : newly created tmpfile
> >