From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:38542 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761745AbdJRAyu (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:54:50 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9I0rUDN029274 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:54:49 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dnr5a2d0k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:54:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:54:48 -0400 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar , Dmitry Kasatkin , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , David Howells , David Woodhouse , Jessica Yu , Rusty Russell , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , "AKASHI, Takahiro" , Thiago Jung Bauermann Subject: [PATCH v5 10/18] ima: Store measurement after appraisal Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:53:23 -0200 In-Reply-To: <20171018005331.2688-1-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20171018005331.2688-1-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20171018005331.2688-11-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: When module-style signatures appended at the end of files are supported for IMA appraisal, the code will fallback to the xattr signature if the appended one fails to verify. The problem is that we don't know whether we need to fallback to the xattr signature until the appraise step, and by then the measure step was already completed and would need to be done again in case the template includes the signature. To avoid this problem, do the appraisal first so that the correct signature is stored by the template in the measure step. Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann --- security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c index 747a4fd9e2de..8e96450e27f5 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c @@ -242,12 +242,12 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, char *buf, loff_t size, if (!pathbuf) /* ima_rdwr_violation possibly pre-fetched */ pathname = ima_d_path(&file->f_path, &pathbuf, filename); - if (action & IMA_MEASURE) - ima_store_measurement(iint, file, pathname, - xattr_value, xattr_len, pcr); if (rc == 0 && (action & IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK)) rc = ima_appraise_measurement(func, iint, file, pathname, xattr_value, xattr_len, opened); + if (action & IMA_MEASURE) + ima_store_measurement(iint, file, pathname, + xattr_value, xattr_len, pcr); if (action & IMA_AUDIT) ima_audit_measurement(iint, pathname);