All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Richter <erichte@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	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 11:16:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180803161636.GX3001@ubuntu-xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1533308099.4337.424.camel@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:54:59AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 08:11 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Agreed!  We can modify the "case LOADING_KEXEC_IMAGE" in
> ima_load_data() to prevent the kexec_load based on
> CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG.
> 
> The architecture specific policy would only include the IMA appraise
> rule if CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG was not defined.

After looking at this some more I'm having second thoughts about my
suggestion. As a distro we produce a kernel that needs to be flexible
enough for a variety of scenarios, and if we completely close off the
ability to load an unsigned kernel for kexec that's almost certainly
going to end up breaking some use cases.

So I think it is necessary to make this a run-time decision rather than
a compile-time decision. The patch as provided does this based on
whether or not the kernel was booted under secure boot. That might be
reasonable, though I still find this mechanism kind of awkward. It seems
like ideally there would instead be some logic that would accept the
image if the KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG verification had passed, and otherwise
require IMA signature verification.

Thanks,
Seth

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: seth.forshee@canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] ima: add support for KEXEC_ORIG_KERNEL_CHECK
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 11:16:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180803161636.GX3001@ubuntu-xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1533308099.4337.424.camel@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:54:59AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 08:11 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Agreed! ?We can modify the "case LOADING_KEXEC_IMAGE" in
> ima_load_data() to prevent the kexec_load based on
> CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG.
> 
> The architecture specific policy would only include the IMA appraise
> rule if CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG was not defined.

After looking at this some more I'm having second thoughts about my
suggestion. As a distro we produce a kernel that needs to be flexible
enough for a variety of scenarios, and if we completely close off the
ability to load an unsigned kernel for kexec that's almost certainly
going to end up breaking some use cases.

So I think it is necessary to make this a run-time decision rather than
a compile-time decision. The patch as provided does this based on
whether or not the kernel was booted under secure boot. That might be
reasonable, though I still find this mechanism kind of awkward. It seems
like ideally there would instead be some logic that would accept the
image if the KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG verification had passed, and otherwise
require IMA signature verification.

Thanks,
Seth
--
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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Richter <erichte@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	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 11:16:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180803161636.GX3001@ubuntu-xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1533308099.4337.424.camel@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:54:59AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 08:11 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Agreed!  We can modify the "case LOADING_KEXEC_IMAGE" in
> ima_load_data() to prevent the kexec_load based on
> CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG.
> 
> The architecture specific policy would only include the IMA appraise
> rule if CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG was not defined.

After looking at this some more I'm having second thoughts about my
suggestion. As a distro we produce a kernel that needs to be flexible
enough for a variety of scenarios, and if we completely close off the
ability to load an unsigned kernel for kexec that's almost certainly
going to end up breaking some use cases.

So I think it is necessary to make this a run-time decision rather than
a compile-time decision. The patch as provided does this based on
whether or not the kernel was booted under secure boot. That might be
reasonable, though I still find this mechanism kind of awkward. It seems
like ideally there would instead be some logic that would accept the
image if the KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG verification had passed, and otherwise
require IMA signature verification.

Thanks,
Seth

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-03 16:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ 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 ` Eric Richter
2018-07-25 23:31 ` [PATCH 1/4] ima: add support for arch specific policies Eric Richter
2018-07-25 23:31   ` Eric Richter
2018-07-28  2:24   ` kbuild test robot
2018-07-28  2:24     ` kbuild test robot
2018-08-03 10:08     ` Nayna Jain
2018-08-03 10:08       ` Nayna Jain
2018-08-03 10:08       ` Nayna Jain
2018-07-28  2:24   ` [RFC PATCH] ima: arch_policy_rules can be static kbuild test robot
2018-07-28  2:24     ` 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   ` Eric Richter
2018-07-25 23:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] ima: add support for KEXEC_ORIG_KERNEL_CHECK Eric Richter
2018-07-25 23:31   ` Eric Richter
2018-08-03 13:11   ` Seth Forshee
2018-08-03 13:11     ` Seth Forshee
2018-08-03 14:54     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-08-03 14:54       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-08-03 14:54       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-08-03 16:16       ` Seth Forshee [this message]
2018-08-03 16:16         ` Seth Forshee
2018-08-03 16:16         ` Seth Forshee
2018-08-03 19:47         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-08-03 19:47           ` Mimi Zohar
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
2018-07-25 23:32   ` Eric Richter
2018-07-28 12:22   ` kbuild test robot
2018-07-28 12:22     ` kbuild test robot
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=20180803161636.GX3001@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 \
    --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 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.