[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201210221417.GF489768@sequoia>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:14:17 -0600
From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: zohar@...ux.ibm.com, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
gmazyland@...il.com, paul@...l-moore.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 v7 1/8] IMA: generalize keyring specific measurement
constructs
On 2020-12-09 11:42:05, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> IMA functions such as ima_match_keyring(), process_buffer_measurement(),
> ima_match_policy() etc. handle data specific to keyrings. Currently,
> these constructs are not generic to handle any func specific data.
> This makes it harder to extend them without code duplication.
>
> Refactor the keyring specific measurement constructs to be generic and
> reusable in other measurement scenarios.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
I've got a few code cleanup suggestions to ima_match_rule_data() below
but the current patch is fine:
Reviewed-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 6 ++--
> security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c | 6 ++--
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 6 ++--
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> index 8e8b1e3cb847..e5622ce8cbb1 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static inline void ima_process_queued_keys(void) {}
> int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> int mask, enum ima_hooks func, int *pcr,
> struct ima_template_desc **template_desc,
> - const char *keyring);
> + const char *func_data);
> int ima_must_measure(struct inode *inode, int mask, enum ima_hooks func);
> int ima_collect_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size,
> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ void ima_store_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint, struct file *file,
> struct ima_template_desc *template_desc);
> void process_buffer_measurement(struct inode *inode, const void *buf, int size,
> const char *eventname, enum ima_hooks func,
> - int pcr, const char *keyring);
> + int pcr, const char *func_data);
> void ima_audit_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> const unsigned char *filename);
> int ima_alloc_init_template(struct ima_event_data *event_data,
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ const char *ima_d_path(const struct path *path, char **pathbuf, char *filename);
> int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> enum ima_hooks func, int mask, int flags, int *pcr,
> struct ima_template_desc **template_desc,
> - const char *keyring);
> + const char *func_data);
> void ima_init_policy(void);
> void ima_update_policy(void);
> void ima_update_policy_flag(void);
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> index 4f39fb93f278..af218babd198 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ void ima_add_violation(struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
> * @func: caller identifier
> * @pcr: pointer filled in if matched measure policy sets pcr=
> * @template_desc: pointer filled in if matched measure policy sets template=
> - * @keyring: keyring name used to determine the action
> + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL.
> *
> * The policy is defined in terms of keypairs:
> * subj=, obj=, type=, func=, mask=, fsmagic=
> @@ -186,14 +186,14 @@ void ima_add_violation(struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
> int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> int mask, enum ima_hooks func, int *pcr,
> struct ima_template_desc **template_desc,
> - const char *keyring)
> + const char *func_data)
> {
> int flags = IMA_MEASURE | IMA_AUDIT | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_HASH;
>
> flags &= ima_policy_flag;
>
> return ima_match_policy(inode, cred, secid, func, mask, flags, pcr,
> - template_desc, keyring);
> + template_desc, func_data);
> }
>
> /*
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index 68956e884403..e76ef4bfd0f4 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -786,13 +786,13 @@ int ima_post_load_data(char *buf, loff_t size,
> * @eventname: event name to be used for the buffer entry.
> * @func: IMA hook
> * @pcr: pcr to extend the measurement
> - * @keyring: keyring name to determine the action to be performed
> + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL.
> *
> * Based on policy, the buffer is measured into the ima log.
> */
> void process_buffer_measurement(struct inode *inode, const void *buf, int size,
> const char *eventname, enum ima_hooks func,
> - int pcr, const char *keyring)
> + int pcr, const char *func_data)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> const char *audit_cause = "ENOMEM";
> @@ -831,7 +831,7 @@ void process_buffer_measurement(struct inode *inode, const void *buf, int size,
> if (func) {
> security_task_getsecid(current, &secid);
> action = ima_get_action(inode, current_cred(), secid, 0, func,
> - &pcr, &template, keyring);
> + &pcr, &template, func_data);
> if (!(action & IMA_MEASURE))
> return;
> }
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 823a0c1379cb..25419c7ff50b 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -453,30 +453,44 @@ 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
> + * @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 char *func_data,
> + const struct cred *cred)
> {
> + const struct ima_rule_opt_list *opt_list = NULL;
> bool matched = false;
> size_t i;
>
> if ((rule->flags & IMA_UID) && !rule->uid_op(cred->uid, rule->uid))
> return false;
>
> - if (!rule->keyrings)
> - return true;
> + switch (rule->func) {
> + case KEY_CHECK:
> + if (!rule->keyrings)
> + return true;
> + else
> + opt_list = rule->keyrings;
You return if rule->keyrings is NULL so drop this else and simply make
the opt_list assignment.
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
I would like to see the 'return false;' happen immediately here instead
of waiting for the opt_list check below.
> + }
>
> - if (!keyring)
> + if (!func_data)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!opt_list)
> return false;
If you return false in the 'default:' case above, you can just remove this
entire conditional because you'll be assigning opt_list in all of the
valid cases of the switch statement.
Tyler
>
> - 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;
> }
> @@ -493,20 +507,20 @@ static bool ima_match_keyring(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
> * @secid: the secid of the task to be validated
> * @func: LIM hook identifier
> * @mask: requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC)
> - * @keyring: keyring name to check in policy for KEY_CHECK func
> + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL.
> *
> * Returns true on rule match, false on failure.
> */
> static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode,
> const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> enum ima_hooks func, int mask,
> - const char *keyring)
> + const char *func_data)
> {
> int i;
>
> if (func == KEY_CHECK) {
> return (rule->flags & IMA_FUNC) && (rule->func == func) &&
> - ima_match_keyring(rule, keyring, cred);
> + ima_match_rule_data(rule, func_data, cred);
> }
> if ((rule->flags & IMA_FUNC) &&
> (rule->func != func && func != POST_SETATTR))
> @@ -610,8 +624,7 @@ static int get_subaction(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, enum ima_hooks func)
> * @mask: requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC)
> * @pcr: set the pcr to extend
> * @template_desc: the template that should be used for this rule
> - * @keyring: the keyring name, if given, to be used to check in the policy.
> - * keyring can be NULL if func is anything other than KEY_CHECK.
> + * @func_data: private data specific to @func, can be NULL.
> *
> * Measure decision based on func/mask/fsmagic and LSM(subj/obj/type)
> * conditions.
> @@ -623,7 +636,7 @@ static int get_subaction(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, enum ima_hooks func)
> int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> enum ima_hooks func, int mask, int flags, int *pcr,
> struct ima_template_desc **template_desc,
> - const char *keyring)
> + const char *func_data)
> {
> struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
> int action = 0, actmask = flags | (flags << 1);
> @@ -638,7 +651,7 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> continue;
>
> if (!ima_match_rules(entry, inode, cred, secid, func, mask,
> - keyring))
> + func_data))
> continue;
>
> action |= entry->flags & IMA_ACTION_FLAGS;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists