Re: [PATCH v5] x86/kexec: Carry forward IMA measurement log on kexec

Baoquan He
2022-06-16T02:59:39Z

On 06/13/22 at 05:01pm, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 10:30 +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > On kexec file load Integrity Measurement Architecture (IMA) subsystem
> > may verify the IMA signature of the kernel and initramfs, and measure
> > it. The command line parameters passed to the kernel in the kexec call
> > may also be measured by IMA. A remote attestation service can verify
> > a TPM quote based on the TPM event log, the IMA measurement list, and
> > the TPM PCR data. This can be achieved only if the IMA measurement log
> > is carried over from the current kernel to the next kernel across
> > the kexec call.
> >
> > powerpc and ARM64 both achieve this using device tree with a
> > "linux,ima-kexec-buffer" node. x86 platforms generally don't make use of
> > device tree, so use the setup_data mechanism to pass the IMA buffer to
> > the new kernel.
> >
> > (Mimi, Baoquan, I haven't included your reviewed-bys because this has
> > changed the compile guards around the ima_(free|get)_kexec_buffer
> > functions in order to fix the warning the kernel test robot found. I
> > think this is the right thing to do and avoids us compiling them on
> > platforms where they won't be used. The alternative would be to drop
> > the guards in ima.h that Mimi requested for v4.)hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@fb.com>
> > ---
> > v5:
> > - Guard ima_(free|get)_kexec_buffer functions with
> > CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC (kernel test robot)
> > - Use setup_data_offset in setup_boot_parameters and update rather than
> > calculating in call to setup_ima_state.
> > v4:
> > - Guard ima.h function prototypes with CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/kexec.c b/drivers/of/kexec.c
> > index 8d374cc552be..42a6c5721a43 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/kexec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/kexec.c
> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > * Copyright (C) 2016 IBM Corporation
> > */
> >
> > +#include <linux/ima.h>
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/kexec.h>
> > #include <linux/memblock.h>
> > @@ -115,6 +116,7 @@ static int do_get_kexec_buffer(const void *prop, int len, unsigned long *addr,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC
> > /**
> > * ima_get_kexec_buffer - get IMA buffer from the previous kernel
> > * @addr: On successful return, set to point to the buffer contents.
> > @@ -173,6 +175,7 @@ int ima_free_kexec_buffer(void)
> >
> > return memblock_phys_free(addr, size);
> > }
> > +#endif
>
> Inside ima_{get,free}_kexec_buffer(), there's no need now to test
> whether CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is enabled.
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC))
> return -ENOTSUPP;

Indeed. The #ifdef added by Jonathan is redundant. Not sure if the
original IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC) checking inside
ima_{get,free}_kexec_buffer() is intended. I ever reviewed below patch,
the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XX) inside static function will make the function
compiled, and will be optimized out if the CONFIG_XX is not enabled.
However, it only has effect on static function. Here,
ima_{get,free}_kexec_buffer() is not static, likely we should remove the
inside IS_ENABLED() checking.

commit 4ece09be9913a87ff99ea347fd7e7adad5bdbc8f
Author: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
Date: Wed Mar 23 16:06:39 2022 -0700

x86/setup: use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE) instead of #ifdef

Replace the conditional compilation using "#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE" by a
check for "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE)", to simplify the code and
increase compile coverage.

Other than this one Mimi pointed out, this patch looks good to me, thx.

Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

>
>
> >
> > /**
> > * remove_ima_buffer - remove the IMA buffer property and reservation from @fdt
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ima.h b/include/linux/ima.h
>
>