From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B27C4321A for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4622D2084B for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726647AbfF0X2C (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:28:02 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:22136 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726708AbfF0X2C (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:28:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5RNRfs6131535 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:28:00 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2td63tjt0x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:28:00 -0400 Received: from localhost by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:27:59 +0100 Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.18) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:27:56 +0100 Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.236]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x5RNRtVU57475570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:27:55 GMT Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B0FBE056; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:27:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C498BE051; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:27:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from morokweng.localdomain (unknown [9.85.218.134]) by b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:27:53 +0000 (GMT) References: <20190624062331.388-1-prsriva02@gmail.com> <20190624062331.388-3-prsriva02@gmail.com> <87ftnyk5e0.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> <1561648111.4101.135.camel@linux.ibm.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.2 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Prakhar Srivastava , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, vgoyal@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 2/3] IMA: Define a new template field buf In-reply-to: <1561648111.4101.135.camel@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:27:47 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19062723-8235-0000-0000-00000EB00450 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011343; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000286; SDB=6.01224213; UDB=6.00644313; IPR=6.01005402; MB=3.00027497; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-06-27 23:27:58 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19062723-8236-0000-0000-0000463029CB Message-Id: <878stmr4lo.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-06-27_15:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906270272 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mimi Zohar writes: > On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 19:03 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> Hello Prakhar, >> >> Prakhar Srivastava writes: >> >> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_template.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_template.c >> > index 00dd5a434689..a01a17e5c581 100644 >> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_template.c >> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_template.c >> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ static struct ima_template_desc builtin_templates[] = { >> > {.name = IMA_TEMPLATE_IMA_NAME, .fmt = IMA_TEMPLATE_IMA_FMT}, >> > {.name = "ima-ng", .fmt = "d-ng|n-ng"}, >> > {.name = "ima-sig", .fmt = "d-ng|n-ng|sig"}, >> > + {.name = "ima-buf", .fmt = "d-ng|n-ng|buf"}, >> > {.name = "", .fmt = ""}, /* placeholder for a custom format */ >> > }; >> > >> > @@ -43,6 +44,8 @@ static const struct ima_template_field supported_fields[] = { >> > .field_show = ima_show_template_string}, >> > {.field_id = "sig", .field_init = ima_eventsig_init, >> > .field_show = ima_show_template_sig}, >> > + {.field_id = "buf", .field_init = ima_eventbuf_init, >> > + .field_show = ima_show_template_buf}, >> > }; >> > #define MAX_TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN 15 >> >> Currently, MAX_TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN is the length of a template that >> contains all valid fields. It may make sense to increase it since >> there's a new field being added. >> >> I suggest using a sizeof() to show where the number comes from (and >> which can be visually shown to be correct): >> >> #define MAX_TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN sizeof("d|n|d-ng|n-ng|sig|buf") >> >> The sizeof() is calculated at compile time. > > MAX_TEMPLATE_NAME_LEN is used when restoring measurements carried over > from a kexec. 'd' and 'd-ng' should not both be defined in the > template description, nor should 'n' and 'n-ng'. Ah, makes sense. Thanks for that information. > Even without the > duplication, the MAX_TEPLATE_NAME_LEN is greater than the current 15. > > Thiago, could you address this as a separate patch? Yes, I just sent a patch. -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center