From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>,
agk@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, snitzer@redhat.com,
jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, zohar@linux.ibm.com,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, jannh@google.com
Cc: tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
sashal@kernel.org, jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com,
nramas@linux.microsoft.com, mdsakib@linux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 21:28:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44fb36ae-959d-4ff7-ed1f-ccfc2e292232@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8ba7b15f-de91-40f7-fc95-115228345fce@linux.microsoft.com>
On 12/05/2020 22:46, Deven Bowers wrote:
>
>
> On 5/11/2020 11:03 AM, Deven Bowers wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/10/2020 2:28 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>
>> [...snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, rules are evaluated top-to-bottom. As a result, any
>>>> revocation rules, or denies should be placed early in the file to
>>>> ensure
>>>> that these rules are evaluated before a rule with "action=ALLOW" is
>>>> hit.
>>>>
>>>> IPE policy is designed to be forward compatible and backwards
>>>> compatible,
>>>> thus any failure to parse a rule will result in the line being ignored,
>>>> and a warning being emitted. If backwards compatibility is not
>>>> required,
>>>> the kernel commandline parameter and sysctl, ipe.strict_parse can be
>>>> enabled, which will cause these warnings to be fatal.
>>>
>>> Ignoring unknown command may lead to inconsistent beaviors. To achieve
>>> forward compatibility, I think it would be better to never ignore
>>> unknown rule but to give a way to userspace to known what is the current
>>> kernel ABI. This could be done with a securityfs file listing the
>>> current policy grammar.
>>>
>>
>> That's a fair point. From a manual perspective, I think this is fine.
>> A human-user can interpret a grammar successfully on their own when new
>> syntax is introduced.
>>
>> From a producing API perspective, I'd have to think about it a bit
>> more. Ideally, the grammar would be structured in such a way that the
>> userland
>> interpreter of this grammar would not have to be updated once new syntax
>> is introduced, avoiding the need to update the userland binary. To do so
>> generically ("op=%s") is easy, but doesn't necessarily convey sufficient
>> information (what happens when a new "op" token is introduced?). I think
>> this may come down to regular expression representations of valid values
>> for these tokens, which worries me as regular expressions are incredibly
>> error-prone[1].
>>
>> I'll see what I can come up with regarding this.
>
> I have not found a way that I like to expose some kind of grammar
> through securityfs that can be understood by usermode to parse the
> policy. Here's what I propose as a compromise:
>
> 1. I remove the unknown command behavior. This address your
> first point about inconsistent behaviors, and effectively removes the
> strict_parse sysctl (as it is always enabled).
>
> 2. I introduce a versioning system for the properties
> themselves. The valid set of properties and their versions
> can be found in securityfs, under say, ipe/config in a key=value
> format where `key` indicates the understood token, and `value`
> indicates their current version. For example:
>
> $ cat $SECURITYFS/ipe/config
> op=1
> action=1
> policy_name=1
> policy_version=1
> dmverity_signature=1
> dmverity_roothash=1
> boot_verified=1
The name ipe/config sounds like a file to configure IPE. Maybe something
like ipe/config_abi or ipe/config_grammar?
>
> if new syntax is introduced, the version number is increased.
>
> 3. The format of those versions are documented as part of
> the admin-guide around IPE. If user-mode at that point wants to rip
> the documentation formats and correlate with the versioning, then
> it fulfills the same functionality as above, with out the complexity
> around exposing a parsing grammar and interpreting it on-the-fly.
> Many of these are unlikely to move past version 1, however.
>
> Thoughts?
>
That seems reasonable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-14 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-15 16:25 [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/12] scripts: add ipe tooling to generate boot policy deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/12] security: add ipe lsm evaluation loop and audit system deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/12] security: add ipe lsm policy parser and policy loading deven.desai
2020-07-15 19:16 ` Tyler Hicks
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/12] ipe: add property for trust of boot volume deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/12] fs: add security blob and hooks for block_device deven.desai
2020-04-22 16:42 ` James Morris
2020-04-22 16:55 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/12] dm-verity: move signature check after tree validation deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/12] dm-verity: add bdev_setsecurity hook for dm-verity signature deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] ipe: add property for signed dmverity volumes deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] dm-verity: add bdev_setsecurity hook for root-hash deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] ipe: add property for dmverity roothash deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/12] documentation: add ipe documentation deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/12] cleanup: uapi/linux/audit.h deven.desai
2020-05-10 9:28 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-11 18:03 ` Deven Bowers
2020-05-12 20:46 ` Deven Bowers
2020-05-14 19:28 ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
2020-05-16 22:14 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2020-05-26 20:44 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2020-05-29 8:18 ` Mickaël Salaün
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=44fb36ae-959d-4ff7-ed1f-ccfc2e292232@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdsakib@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).