linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 16/27] ima: Implement ima_free_policy_rules() for freeing of an ima

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Feb 2022 12:09:34 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     serge@...lyn.com, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
        containers@...ts.linux.dev, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com,
        roberto.sassu@...wei.com, mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com,
        lsturman@...hat.com, puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        jamjoom@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 16/27] ima: Implement ima_free_policy_rules() for
 freeing of an ima_namespace

On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 15:37 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> Implement ima_free_policy_rules() that is needed when an ima_namespace
> is freed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> ---
> v10:
>   - Not calling ima_delete_rules() anymore
>   - Move access check from ima_delete_rules into very last patch
> 
>  v9:
>   - Only reset temp_ima_appraise when using init_ima_ns.
> ---
>  security/integrity/ima/ima.h        |  1 +
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> index aea8fb8d2854..8c757223d549 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> @@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ void ima_update_policy_flags(struct ima_namespace *ns);
>  ssize_t ima_parse_add_rule(struct ima_namespace *ns, char *rule);
>  void ima_delete_rules(struct ima_namespace *ns);
>  int ima_check_policy(struct ima_namespace *ns);
> +void ima_free_policy_rules(struct ima_namespace *ns);
>  void *ima_policy_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos);
>  void *ima_policy_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos);
>  void ima_policy_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v);
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 2dcc5a8c585a..fe3dce8fb939 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -1889,6 +1889,20 @@ void ima_delete_rules(struct ima_namespace *ns)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * ima_free_policy_rules - free all policy rules
> + * @ns: IMA namespace that has the policy
> + */
> +void ima_free_policy_rules(struct ima_namespace *ns)
> +{
> +	struct ima_rule_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &ns->ima_policy_rules, list) {
> +		list_del(&entry->list);
> +		ima_free_rule(entry);
> +	}
> +}
> +

The first time a policy is loaded, the policy rules pivot
from ima_default_rules to the custom rules.  When this happens, the
architecture specific policy rules are freed.  Here too, if a custom
policy isn't already loaded, the architecture specific rules stored as
an array need to be freed.  Refer to the comment in
ima_update_policy().

>  #define __ima_hook_stringify(func, str)	(#func),
>  
>  const char *const func_tokens[] = {

-- 
thanks,

Mimi