[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02d18fe0a0ca1223eec9af5c8e01739aa164bf32.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:16:37 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Coiby Xu <coxu@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Karel Srot <ksrot@...hat.com>,
Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: Fall back to default kernel module signature
verification
On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 08:21 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-10-18 at 07:19 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > > > 2. Instead of defining an additional process_measurement() argument to identify
> > > > > compressed kernel modules, to simplify the code it might be possible to define a
> > > > > new "func" named COMPRESSED_MODULE_CHECK.
> > > > >
> > > > > + [READING_COMPRESSED_MODULE] = MODULE_CHECK, -> COMPRESSED_MODULE_CHECK
> > > >
> > > > I also thought about this approach. But IMA rule maps kernel module
> > > > loading to MODULE_CHECK. If we define a new rule and ask users to use
> > > > this new rule, ima_policy=secure_boot still won't work.
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with extending the "secure-boot" policy to support
> > > uncompressed kernel modules appended signatures, based on whether
> > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is enabled. The new rule would be in addition to the existing
> > > MODULE_CHECK rule.
> >
> > I assume once the new rule get added, we can't remove it for userspace
> > backward compatibility, right? And with CPIO xattr supported, it seems
> > there is no need to keep this rule. So if this concern is valid, do you
> > think we shall switch to another approach i.e. to make IMA support
> > verifying decompressed module and then make "secure-boot" to allow
> > appended module signature?
>
> Yes, once the rule is added, it wouldn't be removed. As for "to make IMA
> support verifying decompressed module", yes that might be a better solution,
> than relying on "sig_enforce" being enabled. IMA already supports verifying the
> appended signatures. A new IMA specific or LSM hook would need to be defined
> after module_decompress().
Looking at the code further, decompressing the kernel module in IMA is
redundant. Instead I think the best approach would be to:
- define DECOMPRESSED_MODULE, in addition to COMPRESSED_MODULE.
id(COMPRESSED_MODULE, compressed-kernel-module) \
id(DECOMPRESSED_MODULE, decompressed-kernel-module) \
- instead of passing a boolean indicating whether the module is compressed, pass
the kernel_read_file_id enumeration to differentiate between the compressed and
decompressed module.
- define a new IMA hook, probably LSM hook as well, named
ima_decompressed_module().
- call the new ima_decompressed_module() from init_module_from_file()
immediately after decompressing the kernel module. Something along the lines
of:
err = ima_decompressed_module(f, (char *)info.hdr, info.len,
READING_DECOMPRESSED_MODULE);
For testing purposes to see the decompressed appended signature in the
measurement list, modify the MODULE_CHECK measure rule to include "template=ima-
modsig" in ima_efi.c.
--
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists