From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Coiby Xu <coxu@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Karel Srot <ksrot@redhat.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>,
Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@kernel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:MODULE SUPPORT" <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lsm,ima: new LSM hook security_kernel_module_read_file to access decompressed kernel module
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 07:19:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fca9a7b41a5e428fadfe2d7e3b004ada2763375c.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42qcfcxxlmwphctzvji76hy5tycfabiiv5u6zw6lgg2p3e2jwv@fp4g2y7ecf2y>
On Thu, 2025-11-13 at 12:06 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 02:28:13PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 17:15 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 21:29 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 03:47:25PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 08:18 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Coiby,
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on the conversation with Paul, there is no reason to remove the existing
> > > > > security_kernel_post_read_file() call.
> > > > >
> > > > > The changes are similar to the 2nd link, but a bit different.
> > > > > - Define a single enumeration named READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED.
> > > > >
> > > > > - In module/main.c add a new security_kernel_post_read_file() call immediately
> > > > > after decompressing the kernel module. Like a previous version of this patch,
> > > > > call kernel_read_file() with either READING_MODULE or READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED
> > > > > based on MODULE_INIT_COMPRESSED_FILE.
> > > > >
> > > > > - In ima_post_read_file() defer verifying the signature when the enumeration is
> > > > > READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED. (No need for a new function ima_read_kernel_module.)
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mimi,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for summarizing your conversation with Paul! I can confirm Paul's
> > > > approach works
> > > > https://github.com/coiby/linux/tree/in_kernel_decompression_ima_no_lsm_hook_paul
> > > >
> > > > While testing the patch today, I realized there is another
> > > > issue/challenge introduced by in-kernel module decompression. IMA
> > > > appraisal is to verify the digest of compressed kernel module but
> > > > currently the passed buffer is uncompressed module. When IMA uses
> > > > uncompressed module data to calculate the digest, xattr signature
> > > > verification will fail. If we always make IMA read the original kernel
> > > > module data again to calculate the digest, does it look like a
> > > > quick-and-dirty fix? If we can assume people won't load kernel module so
> > > > often, the performance impact is negligible. Otherwise we may have to
> > > > introduce a new LSM hook so IMA can access uncompressed and original
> > > > module data one time.
> > >
> > > ima_collect_measurement() stores the file hash info in the iint and uses that
> > > information to verify the signature as stored in the security xattr.
> > > Decompressing the kernel module shouldn't affect the xattr signature
> > > verification.
> >
> > In the case when the compressed kernel module hasn't previously been measured or
> > appraised before loading the kernel module, we need to "collect" the file data
> > hash on READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED, but defer appraising/measuring it.
> >
> > An alternative to your suggestion of re-reading the original kernel module data
> > to calculate the digest or defining a new hook, would be to define "collect" as
> > a new "action" and pass the kernel_read_file_id enumeration to
> > process_measurement(). IMA_COLLECTED already exists. Only IMA_COLLECT would
> > need to be defined. The new collect "action" should be limited to
> > func=MODULE_CHECK.
> >
> > The downside of this alternative is that it requires a new collect rule:
> > collect func=MODULE_CHECK mask=MAY_READ uid=0
> > appraise func=MODULE_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig
As it turns out, the "collect" rule is unnecessary. On
READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED, process_measurement() should calculate the compressed
file hash. Extending the IMA measurement list and verifying the signature can
then be differed to READING_MODULE.
>
> Thank for suggesting an alternative! I've implemented the idea in
> https://github.com/coiby/linux/tree/in_kernel_decompression_ima_collect
>
> Note besides a new collect rule, another change is needed. Currently,
> process_measurement only accepts enum ima_hooks thus it can't tell if
> it's READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED so to only do collect action. So I
> create a fake MODULE_COMPRESSED_CHECK func.
Correct, either extending process_measurement() with the read_idmap enum or
defining the fake hook would work.
>
> And for the idea of re-reading the original kernel module data, it has
> been implemented in
> https://github.com/coiby/linux/tree/in_kernel_decompression_ima_no_lsm_hook_paul
>
> Both branches have applied your requested three changes including
> respecting the 80 char line limit. Additionally, I made a change to the
> IPE LSM because of the new READING_MODULE_COMPRESSED kernel_read_file_id
> enumerate.
>
> After comparing the two implementations, personally I prefer re-reading
> the original kernel module data because the change is smaller and it's
> more user-friendly. But if there are other reasons I don't know, I'll
> post the patches of the new collect action approach to the mailing list.
The "re-reading" option fails some of the tests. As the "collect" rule isn't
needed, let's stick with the first option.
--
thanks,
Mimi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-18 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20250928030358.3873311-1-coxu@redhat.com>
2025-10-31 7:40 ` [PATCH v2] lsm,ima: new LSM hook security_kernel_module_read_file to access decompressed kernel module Coiby Xu
2025-11-01 16:50 ` Paul Moore
2025-11-02 15:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-02 15:43 ` Paul Moore
2025-11-05 0:18 ` Coiby Xu
2025-11-05 2:47 ` Paul Moore
2025-11-05 14:07 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-05 15:42 ` Paul Moore
2025-11-05 20:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-06 13:35 ` Coiby Xu
2025-11-05 20:47 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-06 13:29 ` Coiby Xu
2025-11-06 22:15 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-07 19:28 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-13 4:06 ` Coiby Xu
2025-11-18 12:19 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2025-11-19 3:52 ` Coiby Xu
2025-11-19 3:47 ` [PATCH v3] ima: Access decompressed kernel module to verify appended signature Coiby Xu
2025-11-19 13:29 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-11-19 14:05 ` Coiby Xu
2025-11-19 14:03 ` [PATCH v4] " Coiby Xu
2025-11-19 15:29 ` 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=fca9a7b41a5e428fadfe2d7e3b004ada2763375c.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=coxu@redhat.com \
--cc=da.gomez@kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=ksrot@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).