| 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: <YhPwvxBsuR/N7xoF@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:06:23 +0100
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: init_ima() adds 8 % to boot time
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 06:19:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-02-20 at 23:57 +0100, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:19:37AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > [Cc'ing Jarkko, Petr Vorel]
> > >
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2022-02-19 at 10:44 +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > > Dear Linux folks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Debian builds its Linux kernel image with `CONFIG_IMA=y` since version
> > > > 5.13.9 [1]. Unfortunately, on the Dell Latitude E7250 `init_ima` takes
> > > > around 33 ms, adding 8 % to the boot time up to loading the initrd.
> > > >
> > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 5.17.0-rc4-amd64
> > > > (debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org) (gcc-11 (Debian 11.2.0-16) 11.2.0, GNU
> > > > ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.38) #1 SMP PREEMPT Debian 5.17~rc4-1~exp1
> > > > (2022-02-18)
> > > > […]
> > > > [ 0.238520] calling init_tis+0x0/0xde @ 1
> > > > [ 0.254749] tpm_tis 00:08: 1.2 TPM (device-id 0x3205, rev-id 80)
> > > > [ 0.285665] initcall init_tis+0x0/0xde returned 0 after 46038 usecs
> > > > […]
> > > > [ 0.301327] calling init_ima+0x0/0xb5 @ 1
> > > > [ 0.301332] ima: Allocated hash algorithm: sha256
> > > > [ 0.335502] ima: No architecture policies found
> > > > [ 0.335520] initcall init_ima+0x0/0xb5 returned 0 after 33389 usecs
> > > > […]
> > > > [ 0.447312] Run /init as init process
> > > >
> > > > Tracing `init_ima` with a depth of 5 shows
> > > > `ima_calc_boot_aggregate_tfm()` takes 24 ms, and
> > > > `ima_add_template_entry()` takes 10 ms.
> > > >
> > > > 1.282630 | 1) swapper-1 | |
> > > > ima_add_boot_aggregate() {
> > > > 1.282631 | 1) swapper-1 | |
> > > > ima_calc_boot_agg:0regate() {
> > > > 1.282631 | 1) swapper-1 | 0.153 us |
> > > > ima_alloc_tfm();
> > > > 1.282631 | 1) swapper-1 | * 24404.59 us |
> > > > ima_calc_boot_aggregate_tfm();
> > > > 1.307037 | 1) swapper-1 | 0.482 us |
> > > > ima_free_tfm.part.0();
> > > > 1.307038 | 1) swapper-1 | * 24407.06 us | } /*
> > > > ima_calc_boot_aggregate */
> > > > 1.307038 | 1) swapper-1 | |
> > > > ima_alloc_init_template() {
> > > > 1.307038 | 1) swapper-1 | 0.173 us |
> > > > ima_template_desc_current();
> > > > 1.307039 | 1) swapper-1 | 0.836 us |
> > > > __kmalloc();
> > > > 1.307040 | 1) swapper-1 | 0.580 us |
> > > > __kmalloc();
> > > > 1.307041 | 1) swapper-1 | 1.555 us |
> > > > ima_eventdigest_ng_init();
> > > > 1.307043 | 1) swapper-1 | 1.275 us |
> > > > ima_eventname_ng_init();
> > > > 1.307044 | 1) swapper-1 | 0.256 us |
> > > > ima_eventsig_init();
> > > > 1.307045 | 1) swapper-1 | 6.618 us | } /*
> > > > ima_alloc_init_template */
> > > > 1.307045 | 1) swapper-1 | |
> > > > ima_store_template() {
> > > > 1.307045 | 1) swapper-1 | 5.049 us |
> > > > ima_calc_field_array_hash();
> > > > 1.307051 | 1) swapper-1 | # 9316.953 us |
> > > > ima_add_template_entry();
> > > > 1.316369 | 1) swapper-1 | # 9323.728 us | } /*
> > > > ima_store_template */
> > > > 1.316369 | 1) swapper-1 | * 33738.54 us | } /*
> > > > ima_add_boot_aggregate */
> > > >
> > > > Tracing `ima_calc_boot_aggregate_tfm()` (attached) shows that the first
> > > > `tpm1_pcr_read()` takes 16 ms in `tpm_transmit()`. Is communicating with
> > > > the TPM supposed to be that slow?
> > > >
> > > > In the last years, Linux decreased it’s boot time a lot, so do you see a
> > > > way to move things out of the hot path and get `init_ima` well below 10
> > > > ms? (As systems get faster and faster, having systems with standard
> > > > distributions to be up below two seconds after pressing the power button
> > > > should be a reasonable goal (500 ms firmware (like coreboot) + 500 ms
> > > > Linux kernel + 1 s user space).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > > https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/commit/6e679322d7d98d30b4a8a3d1b659c899a6e9d4df
> > >
> > > Thank you including the initial and other TPM delays. The main reason
> > > for the "boot_aggregate" is to tie the pre-OS measurements to the post
> > > OS measurement list. Without the TPM based 'boot_aggregate', any IMA
> > > measurement list could be used to verify a TPM quote. The
> > > 'boot_aggregate' is calculated, originally, based on PCRs 0 - 7 and
> > > more recently may include PCRs 8 & 9 as well. The 'boot_aggregate' is
> > > the first record in the IMA measurement list and the first record after
> > > a soft reboot (kexec). It is the one and only IMA measurement record
> > > not dependent on policy.
> > >
> > > There are TPM 1.2 & 2.0 standards' requirements, but there are also
> > > buggy TPMs which don't adhere to them to such an extent that IMA goes
> > > into 'TPM-bypass' mode. Perhaps for those not interested in extending
> > > the concepts of trusted boot to the running OS, defining a new boot
> > > command line option to force IMA into this 'TPM-bypass' mode would be
> > > an acceptable alternative to the delay. The IMA measurement list would
> > > still include a 'boot_aggregate' record, but one containing 0's.
> >
> > I support the opt-in boot option.
> >
> > If the full hardware specifications are known for a device, you might want
> > to use this.
>
> The default would be to extend the TPM with the 'boot_aggregate', with
> an option to opt-out of extending the TPM.
Ah, right, thanks for correction. By "opt-in" I meant "opt-out" :-)
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists