From: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
To: "zohar@linux.ibm.com" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
"dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com" <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
BARVAUX Didier <Didier.BARVAUX@viveris.fr>
Cc: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
Subject: [PATCH v6 4/5] IMA: add a policy option to restrict xattr hash algorithms on appraisal
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 09:20:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210804092010.350372-5-simon.thoby@viveris.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210804092010.350372-1-simon.thoby@viveris.fr>
The kernel has the ability to restrict the set of hash algorithms
it accepts for the security.ima xattr when it appraises files.
Define a new IMA policy rule option "appraise_hash=",
using the mentioned mechanism to expose a user-toggable policy
knob to opt-in to that restriction and select the desired set of
algorithms that must be accepted.
When a policy rule uses the 'appraise_hash' option, appraisal of a
file referenced by that rule will now fail if the digest algorithm
employed to hash the file was not one of those explicitly listed
in the option. In its absence, any hash algorithm compiled in the
kernel will be accepted.
For example, on a system where SELinux is properly deployed, the rule
appraise func=BPRM_CHECK obj_type=iptables_exec_t appraise_hash=sha256,sha384
will block the execution of iptables if the xattr security.ima of its
executables were not hashed with either sha256 or sha384.
Signed-off-by: Simon Thoby <simon.thoby@viveris.fr>
Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 6 ++-
security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
index 070779e8d836..aeb622698047 100644
--- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
+++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Description:
lsm: [[subj_user=] [subj_role=] [subj_type=]
[obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]]
option: [[appraise_type=]] [template=] [permit_directio]
- [appraise_flag=] [keyrings=]
+ [appraise_flag=] [appraise_hash=] [keyrings=]
base:
func:= [BPRM_CHECK][MMAP_CHECK][CREDS_CHECK][FILE_CHECK][MODULE_CHECK]
[FIRMWARE_CHECK]
@@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ Description:
label:= [selinux]|[kernel_info]|[data_label]
data_label:= a unique string used for grouping and limiting critical data.
For example, "selinux" to measure critical data for SELinux.
+ appraise_hash:= comma-separated list of hash algorithms
+ For example, "sha256,sha512" to only accept to appraise
+ files where the security.ima xattr was hashed with one
+ of these two algorithms.
default policy:
# PROC_SUPER_MAGIC
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index a5b6162535f3..831ce0c690ec 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ enum {
Opt_fsuuid, Opt_uid_eq, Opt_euid_eq, Opt_fowner_eq,
Opt_uid_gt, Opt_euid_gt, Opt_fowner_gt,
Opt_uid_lt, Opt_euid_lt, Opt_fowner_lt,
- Opt_appraise_type, Opt_appraise_flag,
+ Opt_appraise_type, Opt_appraise_flag, Opt_appraise_hash,
Opt_permit_directio, Opt_pcr, Opt_template, Opt_keyrings,
Opt_label, Opt_err
};
@@ -995,6 +995,7 @@ static const match_table_t policy_tokens = {
{Opt_fowner_lt, "fowner<%s"},
{Opt_appraise_type, "appraise_type=%s"},
{Opt_appraise_flag, "appraise_flag=%s"},
+ {Opt_appraise_hash, "appraise_hash=%s"},
{Opt_permit_directio, "permit_directio"},
{Opt_pcr, "pcr=%s"},
{Opt_template, "template=%s"},
@@ -1095,7 +1096,8 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
return false;
if (entry->action != APPRAISE &&
- entry->flags & (IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED | IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED | IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST))
+ entry->flags & (IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED | IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED |
+ IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST | IMA_VALIDATE_HASH))
return false;
/*
@@ -1125,7 +1127,7 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
IMA_UID | IMA_FOWNER | IMA_FSUUID |
IMA_INMASK | IMA_EUID | IMA_PCR |
IMA_FSNAME | IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED |
- IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO))
+ IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO | IMA_VALIDATE_HASH))
return false;
break;
@@ -1137,7 +1139,7 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
IMA_INMASK | IMA_EUID | IMA_PCR |
IMA_FSNAME | IMA_DIGSIG_REQUIRED |
IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO | IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED |
- IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST))
+ IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST | IMA_VALIDATE_HASH))
return false;
break;
@@ -1187,6 +1189,28 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
return true;
}
+static unsigned int ima_parse_appraise_hash(char *arg)
+{
+ unsigned int res = 0;
+ int idx;
+ char *token;
+
+ while ((token = strsep(&arg, ",")) != NULL) {
+ idx = match_string(hash_algo_name, HASH_ALGO__LAST, token);
+
+ if (idx < 0) {
+ pr_err("unknown hash algorithm \"%s\", ignoring",
+ token);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /* Add the hash algorithm to the 'allowed' bitfield */
+ res |= (1U << idx);
+ }
+
+ return res;
+}
+
static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
{
struct audit_buffer *ab;
@@ -1522,6 +1546,26 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
else
result = -EINVAL;
break;
+ case Opt_appraise_hash:
+ ima_log_string(ab, "appraise_hash", args[0].from);
+
+ if (entry->allowed_hashes) {
+ result = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ entry->allowed_hashes =
+ ima_parse_appraise_hash(args[0].from);
+
+ /* invalid or empty list of algorithms */
+ if (!entry->allowed_hashes) {
+ result = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ entry->flags |= IMA_VALIDATE_HASH;
+
+ break;
case Opt_permit_directio:
entry->flags |= IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO;
break;
@@ -1714,6 +1758,23 @@ static void ima_show_rule_opt_list(struct seq_file *m,
seq_printf(m, "%s%s", i ? "|" : "", opt_list->items[i]);
}
+static void ima_policy_show_appraise_hash(struct seq_file *m,
+ unsigned int allowed_hashes)
+{
+ int idx, list_size = 0;
+
+ for (idx = 0; idx < HASH_ALGO__LAST; idx++) {
+ if (!(allowed_hashes & (1U << idx)))
+ continue;
+
+ /* only add commas if the list contains multiple entries */
+ if (list_size++)
+ seq_puts(m, ",");
+
+ seq_puts(m, hash_algo_name[idx]);
+ }
+}
+
int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
{
struct ima_rule_entry *entry = v;
@@ -1825,6 +1886,12 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
seq_puts(m, " ");
}
+ if (entry->flags & IMA_VALIDATE_HASH) {
+ seq_puts(m, "appraise_hash=");
+ ima_policy_show_appraise_hash(m, entry->allowed_hashes);
+ seq_puts(m, " ");
+ }
+
for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
if (entry->lsm[i].rule) {
switch (i) {
--
2.31.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-04 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-04 9:20 [PATCH v6 0/5] IMA: restrict the accepted digest algorithms for the security.ima xattr THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 9:20 ` [PATCH v6 1/5] IMA: remove the dependency on CRYPTO_MD5 THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 17:41 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2021-08-09 20:59 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-04 9:20 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] IMA: block writes of the security.ima xattr with unsupported algorithms THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 17:40 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2021-08-09 13:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-09 23:34 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-10 6:44 ` THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 9:20 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] IMA: add support to restrict the hash algorithms used for file appraisal THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 17:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2021-08-09 17:43 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-10 6:45 ` THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 9:20 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] IMA: introduce a new policy option func=SETXATTR_CHECK THOBY Simon
2021-08-04 18:49 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2021-08-09 18:12 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-04 9:20 ` THOBY Simon [this message]
2021-08-04 20:53 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] IMA: add a policy option to restrict xattr hash algorithms on appraisal Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2021-08-05 7:42 ` THOBY Simon
2021-08-09 18:05 ` Mimi Zohar
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=20210804092010.350372-5-simon.thoby@viveris.fr \
--to=simon.thoby@viveris.fr \
--cc=Didier.BARVAUX@viveris.fr \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/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