[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6e05677355d6d134dddd11da56709b424b631079.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:41:46 +0100
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To: Seth Forshee <sforshee@...nel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, miklos@...redi.hu,
linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
zohar@...ux.ibm.com, paul@...l-moore.com, stefanb@...ux.ibm.com,
jlayton@...nel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] overlayfs: Redirect xattr ops on security.evm to
security.evm_overlayfs
On Mon, 2023-12-11 at 09:36 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:56:06PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > Ok, I will try.
> >
> > I explain first how EVM works in general, and then why EVM does not
> > work with overlayfs.
> >
> > EVM gets called before there is a set/removexattr operation, and after,
> > if that operation is successful. Before the set/removexattr operation
> > EVM calculates the HMAC on current inode metadata (i_ino, i_generation,
> > i_uid, i_gid, i_mode, POSIX ACLs, protected xattrs). Finally, it
> > compares the calculated HMAC with the one in security.evm.
> >
> > If the verification and the set/removexattr operation are successful,
> > EVM calculates again the HMAC (in the post hooks) based on the updated
> > inode metadata, and sets security.evm with the new HMAC.
> >
> > The problem is the combination of: overlayfs inodes have different
> > metadata than the lower/upper inodes; overlayfs calls the VFS to
> > set/remove xattrs.
>
> I don't know all of the inner workings of overlayfs in detail, but is it
> not true that whatever metadata an overlayfs mount presents for a given
> inode is stored in the lower and/or upper filesystem inodes? If the
> metadata for those inodes is verified with EVM, why is it also necessary
> to verify the metadata at the overlayfs level? If some overlayfs
> metadata is currently omitted from the checks on the lower/upper inodes,
> is there any reason EVM couldn't start including that its checksums?
Currently, the metadata where there is a misalignment are:
i_generation, s_uuid, (i_ino?). Maybe there is more?
If metadata are aligned, there is no need to store two separate HMACs.
Thanks
Roberto
> Granted that there could be some backwards compatibility issues, but
> maybe inclusion of the overlayfs metadata could be opt-in.
>
> Thanks,
> Seth
Powered by blists - more mailing lists