public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
To: Eric Richter <erichte@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Justin Forbes <jforbes@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: add support for KEXEC_ORIG_KERNEL_CHECK
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 08:11:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180803131129.GS3001@ubuntu-xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180725233200.761-4-erichte@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:31:59PM -0500, Eric Richter wrote:
> IMA can verify the signature of kernel images loaded with kexec_file_load,
> but can not verify images loaded with the regular kexec_load syscall.
> Therefore, the appraisal will automatically fail during kexec_load when an
> appraise policy rule is set for func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK. This can be used
> to effectively disable the kexec_load syscall, while still allowing the
> kexec_file_load to operate so long as the target kernel image is signed.
> 
> However, this conflicts with CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG. If that option is
> enabled and there is an appraise rule set, then the target kernel would
> have to be verifiable by both IMA and the architecture specific kernel
> verification procedure.
> 
> This patch adds a new func= for IMA appraisal specifically for the original
> kexec_load syscall. Therefore, the kexec_load syscall can be effectively
> disabled via IMA policy, leaving the kexec_file_load syscall able to do its
> own signature verification, and not require it to be signed via IMA. To
> retain compatibility, the existing func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK flag is
> unchanged, and thus enables appraisal for both kexec syscalls.

This seems like a roundabout way to disallow the kexec_load syscall.
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply disallow kexec_load any time
CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG is enabled, since it effectively renders that
option impotent? Or has that idea already been rejected?

Thanks,
Seth

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-03 13:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-25 23:31 [PATCH 0/4] Add support for architecture-specific IMA policies Eric Richter
2018-07-25 23:31 ` [PATCH 1/4] ima: add support for arch specific policies Eric Richter
2018-07-28  2:24   ` kbuild test robot
2018-08-03 10:08     ` Nayna Jain
2018-07-28  2:24   ` [RFC PATCH] ima: arch_policy_rules can be static kbuild test robot
2018-07-25 23:31 ` [PATCH 2/4] ima: add support for external setting of ima_appraise Eric Richter
2018-07-25 23:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] ima: add support for KEXEC_ORIG_KERNEL_CHECK Eric Richter
2018-08-03 13:11   ` Seth Forshee [this message]
2018-08-03 14:54     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-08-03 16:16       ` Seth Forshee
2018-08-03 19:47         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-07-25 23:32 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86 Eric Richter
2018-07-28 12:22   ` kbuild test robot

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=20180803131129.GS3001@ubuntu-xps13 \
    --to=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=erichte@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=jforbes@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    /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