Message-ID: <0296DA27-7CAF-4605-AF67-3645F82BEE4D@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 23:08:38 +0000
From:   Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
CC:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Kanth Ghatraju <kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>,
        Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        "keyrings@...r.kernel.org" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: New LSM to control usage of x509 certificates



> On Oct 19, 2023, at 3:12 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:12:45PM +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 18, 2023, at 8:14 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 07:34:25PM +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2023, at 12:51 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:59 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 13:29 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:09 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:45 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:48 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 12:32 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A complementary approach would be to create an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LSM (or a dedicated interface) to tie certificate properties to a set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel usages, while still letting users configure these constraints.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is an interesting idea.  Would the other security maintainers be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support of such an approach?  Would a LSM be the correct interface?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the recent work I have done with introducing key usage and CA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement is difficult for a distro to pick up, since these changes can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as a regression.  Each end-user has different signing procedures
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and policies, so making something work for everyone is difficult.  Letting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user configure these constraints would solve this problem.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Something definitely needs to be done about controlling the usage of
>>>>>>>>>> x509 certificates.  My concern is the level of granularity.  Would this
>>>>>>>>>> be at the LSM hook level or even finer granaularity?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You lost me, what do you mean by finer granularity than a LSM-based
>>>>>>>>> access control?  Can you give an existing example in the Linux kernel
>>>>>>>>> of access control granularity that is finer grained than what is
>>>>>>>>> provided by the LSMs?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The current x509 certificate access control granularity is at the
>>>>>>>> keyring level.  Any key on the keyring may be used to verify a
>>>>>>>> signature.  Finer granularity could associate a set of certificates on
>>>>>>>> a particular keyring with an LSM hook - kernel modules, BPRM, kexec,
>>>>>>>> firmware, etc.  Even finer granularity could somehow limit a key's
>>>>>>>> signature verification to files in particular software package(s) for
>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps Mickaël and Eric were thinking about a new LSM to control usage
>>>>>>>> of x509 certificates from a totally different perspective.  I'd like to
>>>>>>>> hear what they're thinking.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I hope this addressed your questions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Okay, so you were talking about finer granularity when compared to the
>>>>>>> *current* LSM keyring hooks.  Gotcha.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If we need additional, or modified, hooks that shouldn't be a problem.
>>>>>>> Although I'm guessing the answer is going to be moving towards
>>>>>>> purpose/operation specific keyrings which might fit in well with the
>>>>>>> current keyring level controls.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't believe defining per purpose/operation specific keyrings will
>>>>>> resolve the underlying problem of granularity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps not completely, but for in-kernel operations I believe it is
>>>>> an attractive idea.
>>>> 
>>>> Could the X.509 Extended Key Usage (EKU) extension [1], be used here?  
>>>> Various OIDs would need to be defined or assigned for each purpose.  
>>>> Once assigned, the kernel could parse this information and do the
>>>> enforcement.  Then all keys could continue to remain in the .builtin, 
>>>> .secondary, and .machine keyrings.   Only a subset of each keyring 
>>>> would be used for verification based on what is contained in the EKU.
>>>> 
>>>> 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.12
>>> 
>>> I was also thinking about this kind of use cases. Because it might be
>>> difficult in practice to control all certificate properties, we might
>>> want to let sysadmins configure these subset of keyring according to
>>> various certificate properties.
>> 
>> I agree, a configuration component for a sysadmin would be needed.
>> 
>>> There are currently LSM hooks to control
>>> interactions with kernel keys by user space, and keys are already tied
>>> to LSM blobs. New LSM hooks could be added to dynamically filter
>>> keyrings according to kernel usages (e.g. kernel module verification, a
>>> subset of an authentication mechanism according to the checked object).
>> 
>> If an LSM hook could dynamically filter keyrings, and the EKU was used, 
>> is there an opinion on how flexible this should be?  Meaning, should there 
>> be OIDs defined and carried in mainline code?  This would make it easier 
>> to setup and use.  However who would be the initial OID owner?  Or would 
>> predefined OIDs not be contained within mainline code, leaving it to the 
>> sysadmin to create a policy that would be fed to the LSM to do the filtering.
> 
> The more flexible approach would be to not hardcode any policy in the
> kernel but let sysadmins define their own, including OIDs. We "just"
> need to find an adequate configuration scheme to define these
> constraints.

Also, with the flexible approach, the policy would need to be given to the 
kernel before any kernel module loads, fs-verity starts, or anything dealing 
with digital signature based IMA runs, etc.  With hardcoded policies this 
could be setup from the kernel command line or be set from a Kconfig.  
I assume with a flexible approach, this would need to come in early within 
the initram?

> We already have an ASN.1 parser in the kernel, so we might
> want to leverage that to match a certificate.

We have the parser, however after parsing the certificate we do not 
retain all the information within it.  Some of the recent changes I have 
done required modifications to the public_key struct.  If there isn’t any 
type of hard coded policy, what would be the reception of retaining the 
entire cert within the kernel? 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists