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=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable 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 1A895C433E2 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:03:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC9D22B4E for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:03:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8FC9D22B4E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9Q2W513jzDqjX for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 01:02:59 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=zohar@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9PxB5VTkzDqWS for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 00:58:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06KEXt6l046593; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:58:18 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32dcyq93r8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:58:18 -0400 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06KEYJap048848; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:58:17 -0400 Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32dcyq93qj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:58:17 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06KEjraO017836; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:58:15 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32brq7tukj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:58:15 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06KEuvu627066708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:56:57 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9F1A405F; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:56:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42802A405C; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:56:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.145.253]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:56:56 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1595257015.5055.8.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] ima: move APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM dependency on ARCH_POLICY to runtime From: Mimi Zohar To: Nayna , Bruno Meneguele , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:56:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20200713164830.101165-1-bmeneg@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-20_09:2020-07-20, 2020-07-20 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007200099 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: erichte@linux.ibm.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 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.)   > > -> powerpc with secure boot disabled > > > > [ 0.000000] Kernel command line: <...> ima_policy=appraise_tcb ima_appraise=fix > > [ 0.000000] Secure boot mode disabled > > > > -> Running the system without secure boot and with both options set: > > > > CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=y > > CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=y > > > > Audit prompts "missing-hash" but still allow execution and, consequently, > > filesystem labeling: > > > > type=INTEGRITY_DATA msg=audit(07/09/2020 12:30:27.778:1691) : pid=4976 > > uid=root auid=root ses=2 > > subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 op=appraise_data > > cause=missing-hash comm=bash name=/usr/bin/evmctl dev="dm-0" ino=493150 > > res=no > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Fixes: d958083a8f64 ("x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86") > > Signed-off-by: Bruno Meneguele > > > Reviewed-by: Nayna Jain > Tested-by: Nayna Jain Thanks, Nayna. Mimi