linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 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: <0a627bb2-b356-0141-5e5a-b82d56d0de70@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:17:23 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, 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>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] ima: Implement ima_inode_hash

On 11/25/20 1:04 PM, KP Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:35 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>> On 11/24/20 7:12 AM, KP Singh wrote:
>>> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
>>>
>>> This is in preparation to add a helper for BPF LSM programs to use
>>> IMA hashes when attached to LSM hooks. There are LSM hooks like
>>> inode_unlink which do not have a struct file * argument and cannot
>>> use the existing ima_file_hash API.
>>>
>>> An inode based API is, therefore, useful in LSM based detections like an
>>> executable trying to delete itself which rely on the inode_unlink LSM
>>> hook.
>>>
>>> Moreover, the ima_file_hash function does nothing with the struct file
>>> pointer apart from calling file_inode on it and converting it to an
>>> inode.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
>>
>> There is no change for this patch compared to previous version,
>> so you can carry my Ack.
>>
>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> 
> I am guessing:
> 
> *  We need an Ack from Mimi/James.

Yes.

> * As regards to which tree, I guess bpf-next would be better since the
> BPF helper and the selftest depends on it

Yep, bpf-next is my preference as otherwise we're running into unnecessary
merge conflicts.

Thanks,
Daniel