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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 60CBAC3F2D1 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 23:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361CC24677 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 23:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.b="EWF6FGB4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726752AbgCBXYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2020 18:24:03 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.11.71.1]:59481 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726728AbgCBXYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2020 18:24:03 -0500 Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48WbnD0TYwz9sSM; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:24:00 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1583191440; bh=DDYPV5JesXATDaeno1WkvnhDRSo75/N8R4neFLwcm3Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=EWF6FGB4a5yLFgK1MPk70pFQkkH5yraAThT/pDFLQ01vf9hY0SaHqoe3k1WRuGdXn 2/msTloJk7gAXadv6h6euasmC1v0IxqQBUg4PU0+rQPs+VWnnxaZBI2d2dyILqF/+e KZc3hgRVd4jB8DlSQDkQIEFco4yr1LDJAYKwQah9DMZAJhrBofQalzlBxjRP6PxHiG hMFffNjuPakC16XqPpeNHbNE/GLpcgNdSuKMIFayiNj8NnpdcNUkq5qTHPMVHFpp4B dEHYv6HsBwwemNinHsRlhiYj78fpC9+gt1mcqDGW/6esVTPqK4+D9VPB9nn/krEStG 0rZc6CDr8cWog== From: Michael Ellerman To: Mimi Zohar , Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Nayna Jain , linux-integrity , linuxppc-dev , linux-efi , linux-s390 , Martin Schwidefsky , Philipp Rudo , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: add a new CONFIG for loading arch-specific policies In-Reply-To: <1583161018.8544.96.camel@linux.ibm.com> References: <1582744207-25969-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <1583160524.8544.91.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1583161018.8544.96.camel@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:23:59 +1100 Message-ID: <87lfois5m8.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Mimi Zohar writes: > On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 15:52 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 14:10 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: >> > > Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific >> > > functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the= IMA >> > > include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch >> > > defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, all= owing >> > > the different architectures to select it. >> > > >> > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds >> > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain >> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel >> > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky >> > > Cc: Philipp Rudo >> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman >> > > --- >> > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- >> > > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + >> > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + >> > > include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- >> > > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ >> > > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> > > index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC >> > > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE >> > > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK >> > > select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 >> > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT >> > > # >> > > # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. >> > > # >> > > @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT >> > > prompt "Enable secure boot support" >> > > bool >> > > depends on PPC_POWERNV >> > > - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY >> > > help >> > > Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define sec= urity >> > > policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows= a user >> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig >> > > index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig >> > > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 >> > > select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED >> > > select SWIOTLB >> > > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR >> > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT >> > > >> > > >> > > config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER >> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 >> > > select VIRT_TO_BUS >> > > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS >> > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS >> > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI >> > >> > Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime >> > policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore >> > still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm >> > seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. >> > >> > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for >> > IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT >> > Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=3Dy] && IMA [=3Dy] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [= =3Dn] >> > Selected by [y]: >> > - X86 [=3Dy] && EFI [=3Dy] >> > >> > Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is >> > acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your >> > tags. >> > >>=20 >> Ehm, no, warnings like these are not really acceptable. It means there >> is an inconsistency in the way the Kconfig dependencies are defined. >>=20 >> Does this help: >>=20 >> select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI && IMA_ARCH_POLICY >>=20 >> ? > > Yes, that's fine for x86. =C2=A0Michael, Martin, do you want something > similar or would you prefer actually selecting IMA_ARCH_POLICY? For powerpc this should be all we need: diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig index 497b7d0b2d7e..a5cfde432983 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig @@ -976,12 +976,13 @@ config PPC_MEM_KEYS =20 config PPC_SECURE_BOOT prompt "Enable secure boot support" bool depends on PPC_POWERNV depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT help Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user to enable OS secure boot on systems that have firmware support for it. If in doubt say N. =20 cheers