Message-ID: <d608edb80efe03b62698ab33cbee1eea856a0422.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Wed, 06 Dec 2023 14:10:24 +0100
From:   Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     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,
        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 Mon, 2023-12-04 at 14:26 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 11:34 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:47 PM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/29/2023 6:22 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:28 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 16:06 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:16 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 15:57 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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;
> > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It would increase memory occupation. Sometimes the IMA policy
> > > > > > > encompasses a small subset of the inodes. Allocating the full
> > > > > > > integrity_iint_cache would be a waste of memory, I guess?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Perhaps, but if it allows us to remove another layer of dynamic memory
> > > > > > I would argue that it may be worth the cost.  It's also worth
> > > > > > considering the size of integrity_iint_cache, while it isn't small, it
> > > > > > isn't exactly huge either.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On the other hand... (did not think fully about that) if we embed the
> > > > > > > full structure in the security blob, we already have a mutex available
> > > > > > > to use, and we don't need to take the inode lock (?).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That would be excellent, getting rid of a layer of locking would be significant.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm fully convinced that we can improve the implementation
> > > > > > > significantly. I just was really hoping to go step by step and not
> > > > > > > accumulating improvements as dependency for moving IMA and EVM to the
> > > > > > > LSM infrastructure.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I understand, and I agree that an iterative approach is a good idea, I
> > > > > > just want to make sure we keep things tidy from a user perspective,
> > > > > > i.e. not exposing the "integrity" LSM when it isn't required.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ok, I went back to it again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think trying to separate integrity metadata is premature now, too
> > > > > many things at the same time.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not bothered by the size of the patchset, it is more important
> > > > that we do The Right Thing.  I would like to hear in more detail why
> > > > you don't think this will work, I'm not interested in hearing about
> > > > difficult it may be, I'm interested in hearing about what challenges
> > > > we need to solve to do this properly.
> > > 
> > > The right thing in my opinion is to achieve the goal with the minimal
> > > set of changes, in the most intuitive way.
> > 
> > Once again, I want to stress that I don't care about the size of the
> > change, the number of patches in a patchset, etc.  While it's always
> > nice to be able to minimize the number of changes in a patch/patchset,
> > that is secondary to making sure we are doing the right thing over the
> > long term.  This is especially important when we are talking about
> > things that are user visible.
> > 
> > > Until now, there was no solution that could achieve the primary goal of
> > > this patch set (moving IMA and EVM to the LSM infrastructure) and, at
> > > the same time, achieve the additional goal you set of removing the
> > > 'integrity' LSM.
> > 
> > We need to stop thinking about the "integrity" code as a LSM, it isn't
> > a LSM.  It's a vestigial implementation detail that was necessary back
> > when there could only be one LSM active at a time and there was a
> > desire to have IMA/EVM active in conjunction with one of the LSMs,
> > i.e. Smack, SELinux, etc.
> > 
> > IMA and EVM are (or will be) LSMs, "integrity" is not.  I recognize
> > that eliminating the need for the "integrity" code is a relatively new
> > addition to this effort, but that is only because I didn't properly
> > understand the relationship between IMA, EVM, and the "integrity" code
> > until recently.  The elimination of the shared "integrity" code is
> > consistent with promoting IMA and EVM as full LSMs, if there is core
> > functionality that cannot be split up into the IMA and/or EVM LSMs
> > then we need to look at how to support that without exposing that
> > implementation detail/hack to userspace.  Maybe that means direct
> > calls between IMA and EVM, maybe that means preserving some of the
> > common integrity code hidden from userspace, maybe that means adding
> > functionality to the LSM layer, maybe that means something else?
> > Let's think on this to come up with something that we can all accept
> > as a long term solution instead of just doing the quick and easy
> > option.
> 
> If the result of this patch set should be that IMA and EVM become
> proper LSMs without the shared integrity layer, instead of collapsing
> all changes in this patch set, I think we should first verify if IMA
> and EVM can be really independent. Once we guarantee that, we can
> proceed making the proper LSMs.
> 
> These are the changes I have in mind:
> 
> 1) Fix evm_verifyxattr(), and make it work without integrity_iint_cache
> 2) Remove the integrity_iint_cache parameter from evm_verifyxattr(),
>    since the other callers are not going to use it

Ehm, I checked better.

integrity_inode_get() is public too (although it is not exported). So,
a caller (not IMA) could do:

iint = integrity_inode_get(inode);
status = evm_verifyxattr(..., iint);

However, it should not call integrity_inode_free(), which is also in
include/linux/integrity.h, since this is going to be called by
security_inode_free() (currently).

> 3) Create an internal function with the original parameters to be used
>    by IMA
> 4) Introduce evm_post_path_mknod(), which similarly to
>    ima_post_path_mknod(), sets IMA_NEW_FILE for new files

I just realized that also this is changing the current behavior.

IMA would clear IMA_NEW_FILE in ima_check_last_writer(), while EVM
wouldn't (unless we implement the file_release hook in EVM too).

> 5) Add hardcoded call to evm_post_path_mknod() after
>    ima_post_path_mknod() in security.c
> 
> If we think that this is good enough, we proceed with the move of IMA
> and EVM functions to the LSM infrastructure (patches v7 19-21).
> 
> The next patches are going to be similar to patches v6 22-23, but
> unlike those, their goal would be simply to split metadata, not to make
> IMA and EVM independent, which at this point has been addressed
> separately in the prerequisite patches.
> 
> The final patch is to remove the 'integrity' LSM and the integrity
> metadata management code, which now is not used anymore.
> 
> Would that work?

We are not making much progress, I'm going to follow any recommendation
that would move this forward.

Thanks

Roberto

> Thanks
> 
> Roberto
> 
> > > If you see the diff, the changes compared to v5 that was already
> > > accepted by Mimi are very straightforward. If the assumption I made that
> > > in the end the 'ima' LSM could take over the role of the 'integrity'
> > > LSM, that for me is the preferable option.
> > 
> > I looked at it quickly, but my workflow isn't well suited for patches
> > as attachments; inline patches (the kernel standard) is preferable.
> > 
> > > Given that the patch set is not doing any design change, but merely
> > > moving calls and storing pointers elsewhere, that leaves us with the
> > > option of thinking better what to do next, including like you suggested
> > > to make IMA and EVM use disjoint metadata.
> > > 
> > > > > I started to think, does EVM really need integrity metadata or it can
> > > > > work without?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The fact is that CONFIG_IMA=n and CONFIG_EVM=y is allowed, so we have
> > > > > the same problem now. What if we make IMA the one that manages
> > > > > integrity metadata, so that we can remove the 'integrity' LSM?
> > > > 
> > > > I guess we should probably revisit the basic idea of if it even makes
> > > > sense to enable EVM without IMA?  Should we update the Kconfig to
> > > > require IMA when EVM is enabled?
> > > 
> > > That would be up to Mimi. Also this does not seem the main focus of the
> > > patch set.
> > 
> > Yes, it is not part of the original main focus, but it is definitely
> > relevant to the discussion we are having now.  Once again, the most
> > important thing to me is that we do The Right Thing for the long term
> > maintenance of the code base; if that means scope creep, I've got no
> > problem with that.
> > 
> > > > > Regarding the LSM order, I would take Casey's suggestion of introducing
> > > > > LSM_ORDER_REALLY_LAST, for EVM.
> > > > 
> > > > Please understand that I really dislike that we have imposed ordering
> > > > constraints at the LSM layer, but I do understand the necessity (the
> > > > BPF LSM ordering upsets me the most).  I really don't want to see us
> > > > make things worse by adding yet another ordering bucket, I would
> > > > rather that we document it well and leave it alone ... basically treat
> > > > it like the BPF LSM (grrrrrr).
> > > 
> > > Uhm, that would not be possible right away (the BPF LSM is mutable),
> > > remember that we defined LSM_ORDER_LAST so that an LSM can be always
> > > enable and placed as last (requested by Mimi)?
> > 
> > To be clear, I can both dislike the bpf-always-last and LSM_ORDER_LAST
> > concepts while accepting them as necessary evils.  I'm willing to
> > tolerate LSM_ORDER_LAST, but I'm not currently willing to tolerate
> > LSM_ORDER_REALLY_LAST; that is one step too far right now.  I brought
> > up the BPF LSM simply as an example of ordering that is not enforced
> > by code, but rather by documentation and convention.
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists