Re: [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 17:30 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 5:05 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 15:34 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:08 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2023-08-21 at 15:05 -0700, Sush Shringarputale wrote:
> > > > > On 8/14/2023 3:02 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2023-08-14 at 14:42 -0700, Sush Shringarputale wrote:
> > > > > >>> This design seems overly complex and requires synchronization between
> > > > > >>> the "snapshot" record and exporting the records from the measurement
> > > > > >>> list.  None of this would be necessary if the measurements were copied
> > > > > >>> from kernel memory to a backing file (e.g. tmpfs), as described in [1].
> > > > > Even if the Kernel maintains the link between a tmpfs exported and an
> > > > > in-memory IMA log - it still has to copy the tmpfs portion to the
> > > > > Kernel memory during kexec soft boot.  tmpfs is cleared during kexec,
> > > > > so this copying of tmpfs back to kernel memory is necessary to preserve
> > > > > the integrity of the log during kexec.  But the copying would add back
> > > > > the memory pressure on the node during kexec (which may result in
> > > > > out-of-memory), defeating the purpose of the overall effort/feature.
> > > > > Copying to a regular *persistent* protected file seems a cleaner
> > > > > approach, compared to tmpfs.
> > > >
> > > > From a kernel perspective, it doesn't make a difference if userspace
> > > > provides a tmpfs or persistent file.  As per the discussion
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAOQ4uxj4Pv2Wr1wgvBCDR-tnA5dsZT3rvdDzKgAH1aEV_-r9Qg@mail.gmail.com/#t
> > > > , userspace provides the kernel with the file descriptor of the opened
> > > > file.
> > > >
> > > > > We prototyped this solution, however it
> > > > > does not seem to be a common pattern within the Kernel to write state
> > > > > directly to files on disk file systems.  We considered two potential
> > > > > options:
> > > >
> > > > If no file descriptor is provided, then the measurements aren't copied
> > > > and removed from the securityfs file.  If there are write errors, the
> > > > measurements aren't removed from the securityfs file until the write
> > > > errors are resolved.
> > >
> > > It sounds like this approach would require the file/filesystem to be
> > > continuously available for the life of the system once the log was
> > > snapshotted/overflowed to persistent storage, yes?  Assuming that is
> > > the case, what happens if the file/filesystem becomes inaccessible at
> > > some point and an attestation client attempts to read the entire log?
> >
> > The main purpose of the change is to addres kernel memory pressure.
> > Two designs are being discussed: Sush's "snapshotting" design and
> > Amir's original suggestion of continously exporting the measurement
> > records to a tmpfs or regular file.  Both designs require verifying the
> > initial attestation quote by walking the entire measurement list,
> > calculating the expected TPM PCR value(s).  That doesn't change.
> 
> Sure, but my question is about what happens if portions of the
> measurement list disappear due to file/filesystem problems?  How is
> that handled?

With the "snapshotting" solution there could be multiple files, so
portions could be missing.  The other solution, the preferred solution,
would be one file.

Any suggestions?

-- 
thanks,

Mimi