linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Carry forward IMA measurement log on kexec on x86

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:   Tue, 10 May 2022 08:02:50 +0000
From:   Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Carry forward IMA measurement log on kexec on x86_64

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 09:40:28PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 06:41:17PM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > I'm not tied to setup_data but given the concerns I raise above with
> > device tree on x86 and the need to handle this in the kernel it seemed
> > like a reasonable first approach. You seem to be saying it's not and
> > either adding the device tree infrastructure or doing a command line
> > hack would be preferable?
> 
> All I'm doing is asking more questions to make you give more details as
> to why you wanna do it this way. I'll take a detailed look tomorrow but
> it looks ok from a quick glance.

That's reasonable, thanks for taking the time to do so. I realised
another problem with the command line approach is that this is a flow
involving attestation and potentially signing across the kexec boundary,
so if the command line changes every time due to the memory address we
pass the IMA buffer in then we have to recalculate the expected PCR etc
values for every kexec after we've done the user space buffer
allocation, rather than being able to do so once + offline in advance
for a particular kexec across multiple machines.

J.