From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:48766 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728379AbgGUR03 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:26:29 -0400 Message-ID: <1595352376.5311.8.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] ima: move APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM dependency on ARCH_POLICY to runtime From: Mimi Zohar Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:26:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200720153841.GG10323@glitch> References: <20200713164830.101165-1-bmeneg@redhat.com> <1595257015.5055.8.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20200720153841.GG10323@glitch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Bruno Meneguele Cc: Nayna , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, erichte@linux.ibm.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, stable@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 12:38 -0300, Bruno Meneguele wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:56:55AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 10:40 -0400, Nayna wrote: > > > On 7/13/20 12:48 PM, Bruno Meneguele wrote: > > > > The IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM config allows enabling different "ima_appraise=" > > > > modes - log, fix, enforce - at run time, but not when IMA architecture > > > > specific policies are enabled.  This prevents properly labeling the > > > > filesystem on systems where secure boot is supported, but not enabled on the > > > > platform.  Only when secure boot is actually enabled should these IMA > > > > appraise modes be disabled. > > > > > > > > This patch removes the compile time dependency and makes it a runtime > > > > decision, based on the secure boot state of that platform. > > > > > > > > Test results as follows: > > > > > > > > -> x86-64 with secure boot enabled > > > > > > > > [ 0.015637] Kernel command line: <...> ima_policy=appraise_tcb ima_appraise=fix > > > > [ 0.015668] ima: Secure boot enabled: ignoring ima_appraise=fix boot parameter option > > > > > > > > Is it common to have two colons in the same line?  Is the colon being > > used as a delimiter when parsing the kernel logs?  Should the second > > colon be replaced with a hyphen?  (No need to repost.  I'll fix it > > up.) > >   > > AFAICS it has been used without any limitations, e.g: > > PM: hibernation: Registered nosave memory: [mem 0x00000000-0x00000fff] > clocksource: hpet: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 133484873504 ns > microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x08701013 > Lockdown: modprobe: unsigned module loading is restricted; see man kernel_lockdown.7 > ... > > I'd say we're fine using it. Ok.  FYI, it's now in next-integrity. Mimi