| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <acec2f96b5fa5ae8fb0e12e76f508cf6e7f7ec97.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 08:06:22 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>,
stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com, gmazyland@...il.com,
paul@...l-moore.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 v9 1/8] IMA: generalize keyring specific measurement
constructs
On Sat, 2020-12-12 at 10:02 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>
> 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.
This can be simplified to "func specific data, may be NULL". Please
update in all places.
> *
> * 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..a09d1a41a290 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -453,30 +453,41 @@ 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
After the function_name is a brief description of the function, which
should not span multiple lines. Refer to Documentation/doc-
guide/kernel-doc.rst for details.
Please trim the function description to:
determine whether func_data matches the policy rule
> + * @rule: IMA policy rule
This patch should be limited to renaming "keyring" to "func_data". It
shouldn't make other changes, even simple ones like this.
> + * @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;
> +
> + opt_list = rule->keyrings;
> + break;
> + default:
> + return false;
> + }
>
> - 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;
> }
> @@ -493,20 +504,20 @@ 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.
Update as previously suggested.
> *
> * 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 +621,7 @@ 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.
And again here.
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists