All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io>, Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>,
	"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ima: fail signature verification based on policy
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:35:45 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180227223545.GB18767@mail.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1519335184-17808-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in
> environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the
> signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for
> example using a pre-built kernel.
> 
> This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can

How about recalc_unverifiable_sigs?  It's long, but unverifiable_sigs
is  not clear about whether the intent is to accept or recalculate them.

(or fail_unverifiable_sigs like the flag)

> be specified on the boot command line as an argument to "ima_policy=".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
> Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
> Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Cc: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io>
> Cc: Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>
> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> 
> Changelog v2:
> - address the fail safe environement
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt |  8 +++++++-
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c           | 10 ++++++----
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c               |  3 ++-
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c             |  5 +++++
>  security/integrity/integrity.h                  |  1 +
>  5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 1d1d53f85ddd..c655cd8dbaa0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -1525,7 +1525,8 @@
>  
>  	ima_policy=	[IMA]
>  			The builtin policies to load during IMA setup.
> -			Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot"
> +			Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot |
> +				 unverifiable_sigs"
>  
>  			The "tcb" policy measures all programs exec'd, files
>  			mmap'd for exec, and all files opened with the read
> @@ -1540,6 +1541,11 @@
>  			of files (eg. kexec kernel image, kernel modules,
>  			firmware, policy, etc) based on file signatures.
>  
> +			The "unverifiable_sigs" policy forces file signature
> +			verification failure on privileged mounted
> +			filesystems with the SB_I_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE
> +			flag.
> +
>  	ima_tcb		[IMA] Deprecated.  Use ima_policy= instead.
>  			Load a policy which meets the needs of the Trusted
>  			Computing Base.  This means IMA will measure all
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> index f34901069e78..3034935e1eb3 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> @@ -304,11 +304,13 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>  out:
>  	/*
>  	 * File signatures on some filesystems can not be properly verified.
> -	 * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter,
> -	 * fail the file signature verification.
> +	 * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter or
> +	 * for systems not willing to accept the risk, fail the file signature
> +	 * verification.
>  	 */
> -	if (inode->i_sb->s_iflags &
> -	    (SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE | SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER)) {
> +	if ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) &&
> +	    ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) ||
> +	     (iint->flags & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) {
>  		status = INTEGRITY_FAIL;
>  		cause = "unverifiable-signature";
>  		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index f550f25294a3..5d122daf5c8a 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred,
>  	 */
>  	if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags) ||
>  	    ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) &&
> -	     !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER))) {
> +	     !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) &&
> +	     !(action & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) {
>  		iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK;
>  		iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
>  	}
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index e3da29af2c16..ead3f7fe6998 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ __setup("ima_tcb", default_measure_policy_setup);
>  
>  static bool ima_use_appraise_tcb __initdata;
>  static bool ima_use_secure_boot __initdata;
> +static bool ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs __ro_after_init;
>  static int __init policy_setup(char *str)
>  {
>  	char *p;
> @@ -201,6 +202,8 @@ static int __init policy_setup(char *str)
>  			ima_use_appraise_tcb = true;
>  		else if (strcmp(p, "secure_boot") == 0)
>  			ima_use_secure_boot = true;
> +		else if (strcmp(p, "unverifiable_sigs") == 0)
> +			ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs = true;
>  	}
>  
>  	return 1;
> @@ -390,6 +393,8 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
>  		if (entry->action & IMA_APPRAISE) {
>  			action |= get_subaction(entry, func);
>  			action ^= IMA_HASH;
> +			if (ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs)
> +				action |= IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS;
>  		}
>  
>  		if (entry->action & IMA_DO_MASK)
> diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> index 843ae23ba0ac..8224880935e0 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
>  #define IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO	0x02000000
>  #define IMA_NEW_FILE		0x04000000
>  #define EVM_IMMUTABLE_DIGSIG	0x08000000
> +#define IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS	0x10000000
>  
>  #define IMA_DO_MASK		(IMA_MEASURE | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_AUDIT | \
>  				 IMA_HASH | IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK)
> -- 
> 2.7.5

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: serge@hallyn.com (Serge E. Hallyn)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] ima: fail signature verification based on policy
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:35:45 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180227223545.GB18767@mail.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1519335184-17808-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in
> environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the
> signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for
> example using a pre-built kernel.
> 
> This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can

How about recalc_unverifiable_sigs?  It's long, but unverifiable_sigs
is  not clear about whether the intent is to accept or recalculate them.

(or fail_unverifiable_sigs like the flag)

> be specified on the boot command line as an argument to "ima_policy=".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
> Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
> Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Cc: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io>
> Cc: Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>
> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> 
> Changelog v2:
> - address the fail safe environement
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt |  8 +++++++-
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c           | 10 ++++++----
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c               |  3 ++-
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c             |  5 +++++
>  security/integrity/integrity.h                  |  1 +
>  5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 1d1d53f85ddd..c655cd8dbaa0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -1525,7 +1525,8 @@
>  
>  	ima_policy=	[IMA]
>  			The builtin policies to load during IMA setup.
> -			Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot"
> +			Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot |
> +				 unverifiable_sigs"
>  
>  			The "tcb" policy measures all programs exec'd, files
>  			mmap'd for exec, and all files opened with the read
> @@ -1540,6 +1541,11 @@
>  			of files (eg. kexec kernel image, kernel modules,
>  			firmware, policy, etc) based on file signatures.
>  
> +			The "unverifiable_sigs" policy forces file signature
> +			verification failure on privileged mounted
> +			filesystems with the SB_I_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE
> +			flag.
> +
>  	ima_tcb		[IMA] Deprecated.  Use ima_policy= instead.
>  			Load a policy which meets the needs of the Trusted
>  			Computing Base.  This means IMA will measure all
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> index f34901069e78..3034935e1eb3 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> @@ -304,11 +304,13 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>  out:
>  	/*
>  	 * File signatures on some filesystems can not be properly verified.
> -	 * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter,
> -	 * fail the file signature verification.
> +	 * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter or
> +	 * for systems not willing to accept the risk, fail the file signature
> +	 * verification.
>  	 */
> -	if (inode->i_sb->s_iflags &
> -	    (SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE | SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER)) {
> +	if ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) &&
> +	    ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) ||
> +	     (iint->flags & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) {
>  		status = INTEGRITY_FAIL;
>  		cause = "unverifiable-signature";
>  		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index f550f25294a3..5d122daf5c8a 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred,
>  	 */
>  	if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags) ||
>  	    ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) &&
> -	     !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER))) {
> +	     !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) &&
> +	     !(action & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) {
>  		iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK;
>  		iint->measured_pcrs = 0;
>  	}
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index e3da29af2c16..ead3f7fe6998 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ __setup("ima_tcb", default_measure_policy_setup);
>  
>  static bool ima_use_appraise_tcb __initdata;
>  static bool ima_use_secure_boot __initdata;
> +static bool ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs __ro_after_init;
>  static int __init policy_setup(char *str)
>  {
>  	char *p;
> @@ -201,6 +202,8 @@ static int __init policy_setup(char *str)
>  			ima_use_appraise_tcb = true;
>  		else if (strcmp(p, "secure_boot") == 0)
>  			ima_use_secure_boot = true;
> +		else if (strcmp(p, "unverifiable_sigs") == 0)
> +			ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs = true;
>  	}
>  
>  	return 1;
> @@ -390,6 +393,8 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
>  		if (entry->action & IMA_APPRAISE) {
>  			action |= get_subaction(entry, func);
>  			action ^= IMA_HASH;
> +			if (ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs)
> +				action |= IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS;
>  		}
>  
>  		if (entry->action & IMA_DO_MASK)
> diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> index 843ae23ba0ac..8224880935e0 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
>  #define IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO	0x02000000
>  #define IMA_NEW_FILE		0x04000000
>  #define EVM_IMMUTABLE_DIGSIG	0x08000000
> +#define IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS	0x10000000
>  
>  #define IMA_DO_MASK		(IMA_MEASURE | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_AUDIT | \
>  				 IMA_HASH | IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK)
> -- 
> 2.7.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-27 22:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-22 21:33 [PATCH v2 0/4] ima: unverifiable file signatures Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] ima: fail file signature verification on non-init mounted filesystems Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-27  1:47   ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-02-27  1:47     ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-02-27 15:33     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-27 15:33       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-27 15:33       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] ima: re-evaluate files on privileged " Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] ima: fail signature verification based on policy Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-27 22:35   ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2018-02-27 22:35     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-02-28 11:38     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-28 11:38       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-28 11:38       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-28 15:30       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-02-28 15:30         ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-02-28 15:30         ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-03-02 21:10         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-03-02 21:10           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-03-02 21:10           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] fuse: define the filesystem as untrusted Mimi Zohar
2018-02-22 21:33   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-23  4:00 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] ima: unverifiable file signatures James Morris
2018-02-23  4:00   ` James Morris
2018-02-27  2:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-02-27  2:08   ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-02-27 16:17   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-27 16:17     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-27 16:17     ` Mimi Zohar

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=20180227223545.GB18767@mail.hallyn.com \
    --to=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=alban@kinvolk.io \
    --cc=dongsu@kinvolk.io \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.