linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 23/23] integrity: Switch from rbtree to LSM-managed blob for integrity_iint

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]

Message-ID: <17befa132379d37977fc854a8af25f6d.paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:57:50 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        chuck.lever@...cle.com, jlayton@...nel.org, neilb@...e.de,
        kolga@...app.com, Dai.Ngo@...cle.com, tom@...pey.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, jarkko@...nel.org,
        stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, eparis@...isplace.org,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com, mic@...ikod.net
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 23/23] integrity: Switch from rbtree to LSM-managed blob  for integrity_iint_cache

On Nov  7, 2023 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> 
> Before the security field of kernel objects could be shared among LSMs with
> the LSM stacking feature, IMA and EVM had to rely on an alternative storage
> of inode metadata. The association between inode metadata and inode is
> maintained through an rbtree.
> 
> Because of this alternative storage mechanism, there was no need to use
> disjoint inode metadata, so IMA and EVM today still share them.
> 
> With the reservation mechanism offered by the LSM infrastructure, the
> rbtree is no longer necessary, as each LSM could reserve a space in the
> security blob for each inode. However, since IMA and EVM share the
> inode metadata, they cannot directly reserve the space for them.
> 
> Instead, request from the 'integrity' LSM a space in the security blob for
> the pointer of inode metadata (integrity_iint_cache structure). The other
> reason for keeping the 'integrity' LSM is to preserve the original ordering
> of IMA and EVM functions as when they were hardcoded.
> 
> Prefer reserving space for a pointer to allocating the integrity_iint_cache
> structure directly, as IMA would require it only for a subset of inodes.
> Always allocating it would cause a waste of memory.
> 
> Introduce two primitives for getting and setting the pointer of
> integrity_iint_cache in the security blob, respectively
> integrity_inode_get_iint() and integrity_inode_set_iint(). This would make
> the code more understandable, as they directly replace rbtree operations.
> 
> Locking is not needed, as access to inode metadata is not shared, it is per
> inode.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  security/integrity/iint.c      | 71 +++++-----------------------------
>  security/integrity/integrity.h | 20 +++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c
> index 882fde2a2607..a5edd3c70784 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/iint.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/iint.c
> @@ -231,6 +175,10 @@ static int __init integrity_lsm_init(void)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +struct lsm_blob_sizes integrity_blob_sizes __ro_after_init = {
> +	.lbs_inode = sizeof(struct integrity_iint_cache *),
> +};

I'll admit that I'm likely missing an important detail, but is there
a reason why you couldn't stash the integrity_iint_cache struct
directly in the inode's security blob instead of the pointer?  For
example:

  struct lsm_blob_sizes ... = {
    .lbs_inode = sizeof(struct integrity_iint_cache),
  };

  struct integrity_iint_cache *integrity_inode_get(inode)
  {
    if (unlikely(!inode->isecurity))
      return NULL;
    return inode->i_security + integrity_blob_sizes.lbs_inode;
  }

--
paul-moore.com