* Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
[not found] <CAEFn8qKkXgxUKtribbtFwvG9NykGQo10jQ5Du_i9wJz-wKreOA@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2019-04-23 0:18 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-05-02 15:48 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2019-04-23 0:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: prakhar srivastava; +Cc: linux-integrity, linux-kernel, linux-security-module
[Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
> 2) Adding a LSM hook
> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
> neutral about this.
As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
the boot command line hash? Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
boot command line. Should this be an LSM hook?
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
2019-04-23 0:18 ` [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure Mimi Zohar
@ 2019-05-02 15:48 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-05-02 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-05-02 16:28 ` Casey Schaufler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2019-05-02 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: prakhar srivastava
Cc: linux-integrity, linux-kernel, linux-security-module, Paul Moore,
Casey Schaufler, John Johansen
[Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
>
> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
>
> > 2) Adding a LSM hook
> > We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
> > Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
> > That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
> > neutral about this.
>
> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
> the boot command line hash? Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
> boot command line. Should this be an LSM hook?
From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
2019-05-02 15:48 ` Mimi Zohar
@ 2019-05-02 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-05-02 16:28 ` Casey Schaufler
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Casey Schaufler @ 2019-05-02 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar, prakhar srivastava
Cc: linux-integrity, linux-kernel, linux-security-module, Paul Moore,
John Johansen, casey
On 5/2/2019 8:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
>>
>> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Adding a LSM hook
>>> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
>>> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
>>> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
>>> neutral about this.
>> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
>> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
>> the boot command line hash?????Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
>> boot command line. ??Should this be an LSM hook?
> From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
I can imagine an LSM that cares about the command line,
but I have an interest in it for any work I have in progress.
>
> Mimi
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
2019-05-02 15:48 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-05-02 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler
@ 2019-05-02 16:28 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-05-03 0:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Casey Schaufler @ 2019-05-02 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar, prakhar srivastava
Cc: linux-integrity, linux-kernel, linux-security-module, Paul Moore,
John Johansen, casey
On 5/2/2019 8:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
>>
>> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Adding a LSM hook
>>> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
>>> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
>>> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
>>> neutral about this.
>> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
>> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
>> the boot command line hash?????Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
>> boot command line. ??Should this be an LSM hook?
> From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
I can imagine an LSM that cares about the command line,
but I don't have interest in it for any work I have in progress.
> Mimi
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
2019-05-02 16:28 ` Casey Schaufler
@ 2019-05-03 0:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-05-03 14:24 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tetsuo Handa @ 2019-05-03 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Casey Schaufler, Mimi Zohar, prakhar srivastava
Cc: linux-integrity, linux-kernel, linux-security-module, Paul Moore,
John Johansen
On 2019/05/03 1:28, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/2/2019 8:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
>>
>> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) Adding a LSM hook
>>>> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
>>>> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
>>>> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
>>>> neutral about this.
>>> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
>>> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
>>> the boot command line hash? Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
>>> boot command line. Should this be an LSM hook?
>> From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
>
> I can imagine an LSM that cares about the command line,
> but I don't have interest in it for any work I have in progress.
>
Since the kernel command line controls which LSMs to enable, I doubt that
an LSM which cares about the command line can detect that the kernel command
line was tampered when the kernel command line was tampered...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure
2019-05-03 0:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
@ 2019-05-03 14:24 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2019-05-03 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuo Handa, Casey Schaufler, prakhar srivastava
Cc: linux-integrity, linux-kernel, linux-security-module, Paul Moore,
John Johansen
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 09:53 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/05/03 1:28, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 5/2/2019 8:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >>> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 2) Adding a LSM hook
> >>>> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
> >>>> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
> >>>> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
> >>>> neutral about this.
> >>> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
> >>> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
> >>> the boot command line hash? Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
> >>> boot command line. Should this be an LSM hook?
> >> From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
> >
> > I can imagine an LSM that cares about the command line,
> > but I don't have interest in it for any work I have in progress.
> >
>
> Since the kernel command line controls which LSMs to enable, I doubt that
> an LSM which cares about the command line can detect that the kernel command
> line was tampered when the kernel command line was tampered...
As the subject line indicates, this is the kexec boot command line.
This wouldn't be any different than the existing
kernel_read_file_from_fd() and security_kernel_load_data() calls in
kernel/kexec_file.c and kernel/kexec.c, which provides the LSMs an
opportunity to comment on the kexec image and initramfs.
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-03 14:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CAEFn8qKkXgxUKtribbtFwvG9NykGQo10jQ5Du_i9wJz-wKreOA@mail.gmail.com>
2019-04-23 0:18 ` [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure Mimi Zohar
2019-05-02 15:48 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-05-02 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-05-02 16:28 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-05-03 0:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-05-03 14:24 ` Mimi Zohar
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).