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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).