Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] kexec: replace call to copy_file_from_fd() with kernel version

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 09:20 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> Hi, Mimi
> 
> On 01/25/16 at 10:04am, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 14:37 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > Hi, Mimi
> > > 
> > > Besides of code issues, I have several thing to be understand:
> > > 
> > > What is the effect to kexec behavior with this patchset?
> > >   - without IMA enabled (kconfig or kernel cmdline) it will be same as before?
> > 
> > Yes, without IMA configured or an IMA policy, it is the same as before.
> > 
> > >   - with IMA enabled for kernel bzImage, kexec_file_load will check both ima
> > >     signature and original pe file signature, those two mechanisms are
> > >     somehow duplicated. I'm not sure if we need both for bzImage.
> > 
> > IMA provides a uniform method of measuring and appraising all files on
> > the system, based on policy.  The IMA policy could prevent the original
> > kexec syscall.  On systems without MODULE_SIG_FORCE, the IMA policy
> > would require an IMA signature as well.  (The current patch would
> > require both, even when MODULE_SIG_FORCE is enabled.)
> 
> Hmm, enabling policy is in userspace (initramfs?) so it may not be good
> enough for secure boot case. IMA can be used as a uniform method for kexec
> kernel signature verification for !UEFI or !secure-boot case. 

Normally, the kernel is booted with a builtin policy.   The policy, if
it is being replaced, is normally replaced in the initramfs.  This patch
set introduces the concept of a signed policy.   Refer to the last 3
patches. 

> > 
> > The pe format is supported on x86.  Why require the pe file signature
> > format on all platforms?
> 
> For secure boot purpose, an uefi bootable kernel (as an uefi applicatioin)
> require it to be a pe file.
> 
> But for !secure-boot it is not mandatory.

It would be more appropriate to say that "UEFI secure boot" requires a
pe file, as opposed to "secure boot" in general.

> > > Do you have a simple usage documentation about how to test it?
> > 
> > The wiki[1] and ima-evm-ctl package[2] have directions for enabling
> > IMA/IMA-appraisal.
> > 
> > To include just the kexec image and initramfs file hashes in the IMA
> > measurement list, create a file containing the following IMA policy
> > rules.  "cat" the policy and redirect the output
> > to /sys/kernel/security/ima/policy.   After loading the kexec image and
> > initramfs, the IMA measurements will be included in the measurement list
> > (/sys/kernel/security/ima/ascii_runtime_measurements)
> > 
> > IMA policy: 
> > measure func=KEXEC_CHECK
> > measure func=INITRAMFS_CHECK
> > 
> > Appraising the kexec image and initramfs is a bit more complicated as it
> > requires creating a key, which is signed by a key on the system keyring,
> > and loading the key onto the trusted IMA keyring.  To simplify testing,
> > without CONFIG_IMA_TRUSTED_KEYRING enabled, the key being loaded onto
> > the IMA keyring does not need to be signed.  The evmctl man page[2]
> > contains directions for creating and loading the key onto the IMA
> > keyring. 
> > 
> > To appraise just the kexec image and initramfs files, add the following
> > two rules to the IMA policy and load the policy as before.  (The policy
> > can only be loaded once per boot, unless IMA_WRITE_POLICY is configured.
> > With the default appraisal policy, the policy would need to signed.)
> > Sign the kexec image and initramfs with evmctl before loading them.
> > 
> > # evmctl ima_sign -k <private key> -a sha256 <VM image>
> > # evmctl ima_sign -k <private key> -a sha256 <initramfs>
> > 
> > IMA appraise policy:
> > appraise func=KEXEC_CHECK appraise_type=imasig
> > appraise func=INITRAMFS_CHECK appraise_type=imasig
> > 
> > [1] http://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/wiki/Home
> > [2] http://linux-ima.sourceforge.net/evmctl.1.html
> 
> Thank you, will try
> 
> > 
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct fd f = fdget(fd);
> > > > +	int ret = -ENOEXEC;
> > > 
> > > -EBADF looks better?
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> Seems you missed another comment about the policy id name?
> can the name be like below?
> KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK
> KEXEC_INITRAMFS_CHECK

Luis suggested making the enumeration more generic, not IMA specific.  I
suggested the following:

enum kernel_read_file_id {
        READING_KEXEC_IMAGE = 1,
        READING_KEXEC_INITRAMFS,
        READING_FIRMWARE,
        READING_MODULE,
        READING_POLICY,
        READING_MAX_ID
};

Mimi


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec