Re: [PATCH v10 09/12] ima: Implement support for module-style appended signatures

Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-05-28T19:27:37Z

Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> Hi Thiago,
>
> On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 00:51 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>
>> @@ -326,6 +356,10 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>> case INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN:
>> break;
>> case INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS:/* No EVM protected xattrs. */
>> +/* It's fine not to have xattrs when using a modsig. */
>> +if (try_modsig)
>> +break;
>> +/* fall through */
>> case INTEGRITY_NOLABEL:/* No security.evm xattr. */
>> cause = "missing-HMAC";
>> goto out;
>> @@ -340,6 +374,14 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>> rc = xattr_verify(func, iint, xattr_value, xattr_len, &status,
>> &cause);
>>
>> +/*
>> + * If we have a modsig and either no imasig or the imasig's key isn't
>> + * known, then try verifying the modsig.
>> + */
>> +if (status != INTEGRITY_PASS && try_modsig &&
>> + (!xattr_value || rc == -ENOKEY))
>> +rc = modsig_verify(func, modsig, &status, &cause);
>
> EVM protects other security xattrs, not just security.ima, if they
> exist. As a result, evm_verifyxattr() could pass based on the other
> security xattrs.

Indeed! It doesn't make sense to test for status != INTEGRITY_PASS here.
Not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for spotting it. With your other
comments about this if clause, this code now reads:

/*
* If we have a modsig and either no imasig or the imasig's key isn't
* known, then try verifying the modsig.
*/
if (try_modsig &&
(!xattr_value || xattr_value->type == IMA_XATTR_DIGEST_NG ||
rc == -ENOKEY))
rc = modsig_verify(func, modsig, &status, &cause);

--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center