From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@redhat.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: erichte@linux.ibm.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ima: move APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM dependency on ARCH_POLICY to runtime
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:28:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1592854093.4987.15.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200622172754.10763-1-bmeneg@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 14:27 -0300, Bruno Meneguele wrote:
> IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM has been marked as dependent on !IMA_ARCH_POLICY in
> compile time, enforcing the appraisal whenever the kernel had the arch
> policy option enabled.
>
> However it breaks systems where the option is actually set but the system
> wasn't booted in a "secure boot" platform. In this scenario, anytime the
> an appraisal policy (i.e. ima_policy=appraisal_tcb) is used it will be
> forced, giving no chance to the user set the 'fix' state (ima_appraise=fix)
> to actually measure system's files.
>
> This patch remove this compile time dependency and move it to a runtime
> decision, based on the arch policy loading failure/success.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: d958083a8f64 ("x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86")
> Signed-off-by: Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@redhat.com>
> ---
> changes from v1:
> - removed "ima:" prefix from pr_info() message
>
> security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 2 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 8 ++++++--
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
> index edde88dbe576..62dc11a5af01 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
> @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ config IMA_APPRAISE_REQUIRE_POLICY_SIGS
>
> config IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM
> bool "ima_appraise boot parameter"
> - depends on IMA_APPRAISE && !IMA_ARCH_POLICY
> + depends on IMA_APPRAISE
> default y
> help
> This option enables the different "ima_appraise=" modes
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index e493063a3c34..c876617d4210 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -733,11 +733,15 @@ void __init ima_init_policy(void)
> * (Highest priority)
> */
> arch_entries = ima_init_arch_policy();
> - if (!arch_entries)
> + if (!arch_entries) {
> pr_info("No architecture policies found\n");
> - else
> + } else {
> + /* Force appraisal, preventing runtime xattr changes */
> + pr_info("setting IMA appraisal to enforced\n");
> + ima_appraise = IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE;
> add_rules(arch_policy_entry, arch_entries,
> IMA_DEFAULT_POLICY | IMA_CUSTOM_POLICY);
> + }
>
> /*
> * Insert the builtin "secure_boot" policy rules requiring file
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM controls the "ima_appraise" mode bits.
The mode bits are or'ed with the MODULES, FIRMWARE, POLICY, and KEXEC
bits, which have already been set in ima_init_arch_policy().
From ima.h:
/* Appraise integrity measurements */
#define IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE 0x01
#define IMA_APPRAISE_FIX 0x02
#define IMA_APPRAISE_LOG 0x04
#define IMA_APPRAISE_MODULES 0x08
#define IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE 0x10
#define IMA_APPRAISE_POLICY 0x20
#define IMA_APPRAISE_KEXEC 0x40
As Nayna pointed out, only when an architecture specific "secure boot"
policy is loaded, is this applicable.
Mimi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-22 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-22 17:27 [PATCH v2] ima: move APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM dependency on ARCH_POLICY to runtime Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-22 19:01 ` Nayna
2020-06-22 19:21 ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-22 19:28 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2020-06-22 20:16 ` Bruno Meneguele
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1592854093.4987.15.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bmeneg@redhat.com \
--cc=erichte@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nayna@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.