From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>,
Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@versity.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ima: use fs method to read integrity data (updated patch description)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 12:15:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1505664935.4200.191.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyrZ=YsfNc1vp=vArNgotLXGPr4F6uZiz22Uj2XHGUvaw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 2017-09-17 at 08:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Only for direct I/O, and IMA and direct I/O don't work together.
> > From ima_collect_measurement:
> >
> > if (file->f_flags & O_DIRECT) {
> > audit_cause = "failed(directio)";
> > result = -EACCES;
> > goto out;
> > }
>
> That's not the issue.
>
> The issue is that somebody else can come in - using direct IO - at the
> same time as the first person is collecting measurements, and thus
> race with the collector.
>
> So now the measurements are not trustworthy any more.
Unless I'm missing something, that would only be possible with an IMA
policy rule that permits direct IO (eg. permit_directio). Otherwise
the direct IO is denied.
> > Well, that's exactly the point of the new ->integrity_read routine
> > I proposed and prototype. The important thing is that it is called
> > with i_rwsem held because code mugh higher in the chain already
> > acquired it, but except for that it's entirely up to the file system.
>
> .. and *my* point is that it's the wrong lock for actually checking
> integrity (it doesn't actually guarantee exclusion, even though in
> practice it's almost always the case), and so we're adding a nasty
> callback that in 99% of all cases is the same as the normal read, and
> we *could* have just added it with a RWF flag instead.
>
> Is there some reason why integrity has to use that particular lock
> that is so inconvenient for the filesystems it wants to check?
Originally IMA had its own lock (iint->mutex), prior to IMA-appraisal
being upstreamed. With a separate lock, the iint->mutex and i_rwsem
would be taken in reverse order in process_measurements() and in the
setxattr, chown, chmod syscalls.
I'm at the airport on my way back home.
Mimi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-17 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-15 4:58 [PATCH 0/3] ima: only call integrity_kernel_read to calc file hash Mimi Zohar
2017-09-15 4:58 ` [PATCH 1/3] vfs: constify path argument to kernel_read_file_from_path Mimi Zohar
2017-09-15 18:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-15 4:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] integrity: replace call to integrity_read_file with kernel version Mimi Zohar
2017-09-15 4:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] ima: use fs method to read integrity data Mimi Zohar
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwVujvsdaq09O216u-uBbBbo5i_1d6aw3ksottR_uiJ6w@mail.gmail.com>
2017-09-15 9:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-15 9:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-15 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-15 14:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-15 15:21 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-15 20:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] ima: use fs method to read integrity data (updated patch description) Mimi Zohar
2017-09-16 18:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-17 5:47 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-17 15:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-17 15:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-17 15:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-17 16:15 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2017-09-17 16:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-17 16:38 ` Al Viro
2017-09-18 9:19 ` Steven Whitehouse
2017-09-18 10:13 ` Jan Kara
2017-09-18 14:55 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-24 22:55 ` Mimi Zohar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1505664935.4200.191.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfasheh@versity.com \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=rpeterso@redhat.com \
--cc=shaggy@kernel.org \
--cc=swhiteho@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox