linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] security: digest

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSA0dSQ1jaRO_J1S5xEc14XoCnYaVG3AWF=uYaDb-AjoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:51:48 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, 
	alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, mic@...ikod.net, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, 
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, wufan@...ux.microsoft.com, 
	pbrobinson@...il.com, zbyszek@...waw.pl, hch@....de, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, 
	pmatilai@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org, 
	mkoutny@...e.com, ppavlu@...e.com, petr.vorel@...il.com, mzerqung@...inter.de, 
	kgold@...ux.ibm.com, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] security: digest_cache LSM

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:31 PM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 12:08 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:14 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 10:48 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 5:12 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 14:43 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:38 PM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Making it a kernel subsystem would likely mean replicating what the LSM
> > > > > > > infrastructure is doing, inode (security) blob and being notified about
> > > > > > > file/directory changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just because the LSM framework can be used for something, perhaps it
> > > > > > even makes the implementation easier, it doesn't mean the framework
> > > > > > should be used for everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is supporting 3 LSMs: IMA, IPE and BPF LSM.
> > > > >
> > > > > That makes it a clear target for the security subsystem, and as you
> > > > > suggested to start for IMA, if other kernel subsystems require them, we
> > > > > can make it as an independent subsystem.
> > > >
> > > > Have you discussed the file digest cache functionality with either the
> > > > IPE or BPF LSM maintainers?  While digest_cache may support these
> > >
> > > Well, yes. I was in a discussion since long time ago with Deven and
> > > Fan. The digest_cache LSM is listed in the Use Case section of the IPE
> > > cover letter:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/1716583609-21790-1-git-send-email-wufan@linux.microsoft.com/
> >
> > I would hope to see more than one sentence casually mentioning that
> > there might be some integration in the future.
>
> Sure, I can work more with Fan to do a proper integration.

That seems like a good pre-requisite for turning digest_cache into a
general purpose subsystem.

> > > I also developed an IPE module back in the DIGLIM days:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/a16a628b9e21433198c490500a987121@huawei.com/
> >
> > That looks like more of an fs-verity integration to me.  Yes, of
> > course there would be IPE changes to accept a signature/digest from a
> > digest cache, but that should be minor.
>
> True, but IPE will also benefit from not needing to specify every
> digest in the policy.

Sure, but that isn't really that important from a code integration
perspective, that's an admin policy issue.  I expect there would be
much more integration work with fs-verity than with IPE, and I think
the fs-verity related work might be a challenge.

> Also, the design choice of attaching the digest cache to the inode
> helps LSMs like IPE that don't have a per inode cache on their own.
> Sure, IPE would have to do a digest lookup every time, but at least on
> an already populated hash table.

Just because you need to attach some state to an inode does not mean a
file digest cache must be a LSM.  It could be integrated into the VFS
or it could be a separate subsystem; either way it could provide an
API (either through well defined data structures or functions) that
could be used by various LSMs and filesystems that provide integrity
protection.

-- 
paul-moore.com