Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: add support for KEXEC_ORIG_KERNEL_CHECK

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

On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 08:11 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:31:59PM -0500, Eric Richter wrote:
> > IMA can verify the signature of kernel images loaded with kexec_file_load,
> > but can not verify images loaded with the regular kexec_load syscall.
> > Therefore, the appraisal will automatically fail during kexec_load when an
> > appraise policy rule is set for func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK. This can be used
> > to effectively disable the kexec_load syscall, while still allowing the
> > kexec_file_load to operate so long as the target kernel image is signed.
> > 
> > However, this conflicts with CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG. If that option is
> > enabled and there is an appraise rule set, then the target kernel would
> > have to be verifiable by both IMA and the architecture specific kernel
> > verification procedure.
> > 
> > This patch adds a new func= for IMA appraisal specifically for the original
> > kexec_load syscall. Therefore, the kexec_load syscall can be effectively
> > disabled via IMA policy, leaving the kexec_file_load syscall able to do its
> > own signature verification, and not require it to be signed via IMA. To
> > retain compatibility, the existing func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK flag is
> > unchanged, and thus enables appraisal for both kexec syscalls.
> 
> This seems like a roundabout way to disallow the kexec_load syscall.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply disallow kexec_load any time
> CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG is enabled, since it effectively renders that
> option impotent? Or has that idea already been rejected?

Agreed!  We can modify the "case LOADING_KEXEC_IMAGE" in
ima_load_data() to prevent the kexec_load based on
CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG.

The architecture specific policy would only include the IMA appraise
rule if CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG was not defined.

Mimi