linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/16] ipe: add userspace interface

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT9uTYrtEsXUvj5qaTpNL2ix762dE5AzUaSqzas8-frXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:31:11 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, tytso@....edu, ebiggers@...nel.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org,
        eparis@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        roberto.sassu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/16] ipe: add userspace interface

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:18 PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 04:16:29PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:06???PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 02:45:07PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 7:36???PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:45:41PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 3:10???PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:04:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:58???PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > I guess this does make me wonder about keeping a non-active policy
> > > > > > loaded in the kernel, what purpose does that serve?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The non-active policy doesn't serve anything unless it is activated. User can
> > > > > even delete a policy if that is no longer needed. Non-active is just the default
> > > > > state when a new policy is loaded.
> > > > >
> > > > > If IPE supports namespace, there is another use case where different containers
> > > > > can select different policies as the active policy from among multiple loaded
> > > > > policies. Deven has presented a demo of this during LSS 2021. But this goes
> > > > > beyond the scope of this version.
> > > >
> > > > Do you plan to add namespace support at some point in the
> > > > not-too-distant future?  If so, I'm okay with keeping support for
> > > > multiple policies, but if you think you're only going to support one
> > > > active policy at a time, it might be better to remove support for
> > > > multiple (inactive) policies.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > paul-moore.com
> > >
> > > Another benefit of having multiple policies is that it provides isolation
> > > between different policies. For instance, if we have two policies named
> > > "policy_a" and "policy_b," we can ensure that only team a can update "policy_a,"
> > > and only team b can update "policy_b." This way, both teams can update
> > > their policy without affecting others. However, if there is only one policy
> > > in the system, both teams will have to operate on the same policy, making it
> > > less manageable.
> >
> > That only really matters if both policies are active at the same time;
> > if only one policy can be active at one point in time the only
> > permission that matters is the one who can load/activate a policy.
> >
> > Allowing for multiple policies complicates the code.  If there is
> > another feature that requires multiple policies, e.g. IPE namespaces,
> > then that is okay.  However, if there is no feature which requires
> > multiple active policies, supporting multiple loaded policies only
> > increases the risk of an exploitable bug in the IPE code.
> >
> > > Besides, removing multiple (inactive) policies support will
> > > render the policy_name field meaningless, and we should only audit the policy
> > > hash. I am fine if we decide to go for the single policy option.
> >
> > Once again, I think it comes back to: do you still want to support IPE
> > namespaces at some point in the future, and if so, when do you expect
> > to work on that?
>
> Yes, absolutely! We definitely have plans to support namespaces in the future.
> However, it's worth mentioning that there are other tasks that we may need
> to prioritize due to their relatively lower complexity. For example, before
> we can fully implement namespaces, we need to address some other important
> aspects of the system, such as adding a policy language for integrity
> enforcement on configuration files and defining trusted certificates
> that can sign the root hash. Therefore, the timeline for implementing
> namespaces will depend on the completion time of these tasks.
>
> I understand your concerns, and we can proceed with a single policy design
> for the initial version.

I think it's okay to stick with the multi-policy code for the initial
submission, you've got the code now, and it's tested.  I just wanted
to make sure there were plans to make use of it at some point, if not
we might as well drop it now.  However, it sounds like you've got a
plan to utilize the multi-policy support so that's fine with me.

-- 
paul-moore.com