From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:51176 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965603AbeEIT5a (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 15:57:30 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w49JtuTQ099928 for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 15:57:30 -0400 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.110]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2hv4n40f5y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 09 May 2018 15:57:30 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 9 May 2018 20:57:27 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] firmware: differentiate between signed regulatory.db and other firmware From: Mimi Zohar To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-wireless , Kalle Valo , Seth Forshee , Johannes Berg , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede , Ard Biesheuvel , Peter Jones , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Kees Cook , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andres Rodriguez , Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 15:57:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> References: <1525182503-13849-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1525182503-13849-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180504000743.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> <1525393466.3539.133.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180508173404.GG27853@wotan.suse.de> <1525865428.3551.175.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1525895838.3551.247.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (sfid-20180509_215744_920400_5D31B980) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 19:15 +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > If both are enabled, do we require both signatures or is one enough. > > > > > > Good question. Considering it as a stacked LSM (although not implemented > > > as one), I'd say its up to who enabled the Kconfig entries. If IMA and > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are enabled then both. If someone enabled > > > IMA though, then surely I agree that enabling > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is stupid and redundant, but its up to the > > > system integrator to decide. > > > > Just because IMA-appraisal is enabled in the kernel doesn't mean that > > firmware signatures will be verified.  That is a run time policy > > decision. > > Sure, I accept this if IMA does not do signature verification. However > signature verification seems like a stackable LSM decision, no? IMA-appraisal can be configured to enforce file signatures.  Refer to discussion below as to how. > > > If we however want to make it clear that such things as > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are not required when IMA is enabled we > > > could just make the kconfig depend on !IMA or something? Or perhaps a new > > > kconfig for IMA which if selected it means that drivers can opt to open code > > > *further* kernel signature verification, even though IMA already is sufficient. > > > Perhaps CONFIG_ENABLE_IMA_OVERLAPPING, and the driver depends on it? > > > > The existing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE is not enough.  If there was a build > > time IMA config that translated into an IMA policy requiring firmware > > signature verification (eg. CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE), this could > > be sorted out at build time. > > I see makes sense. Ok, so instead of introducing READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB, I'll post patches introducing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE, as described above. > > > > > Assigning a different id for regdb signed firmware allows LSMs and IMA > > > > to handle regdb files differently. > > > > > > That's not the main concern here, its the precedent we are setting here for > > > any new kernel interface which open codes firmware signing on its own. What > > > you are doing means other kernel users who open codes their own firmware > > > signing may need to add yet-another reading ID. That doesn't either look > > > well on code, and seems kind of silly from a coding perspective given > > > the above, in which I clarify IMA still is doing its own appraisal on it. > > > > Suppose, > > > > 1. Either CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB or > > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE" would be configured at build. > > > > 2. If CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is configured, not > > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE", a custom IMA-policy rule that > > appraises the firmware signature could be defined.  In this case, both > > signature verification methods would be enforced. > > > > then READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB would not be needed. > > True, however I'm suggesting that CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB > could just be a mini subsystem stackable LSM. Yes, writing regdb as a micro/mini LSM sounds reasonable.  The LSM would differentiate between other firmware and the regulatory.db based on the firmware's pathname. Making regdb an LSM would have the same issues as currently - deciding if regdb, IMA-appraisal, or both verify the regdb's signature. Mimi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar) Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 15:57:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] firmware: differentiate between signed regulatory.db and other firmware In-Reply-To: <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> References: <1525182503-13849-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1525182503-13849-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180504000743.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> <1525393466.3539.133.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180508173404.GG27853@wotan.suse.de> <1525865428.3551.175.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: <1525895838.3551.247.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 19:15 +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >?If both are enabled, do we require both signatures or is one enough. > > > > > > Good question. Considering it as a stacked LSM (although not implemented > > > as one), I'd say its up to who enabled the Kconfig entries. If IMA and > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are enabled then both. If someone enabled > > > IMA though, then surely I agree that enabling > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is stupid and redundant, but its up to the > > > system integrator to decide. > > > > Just because IMA-appraisal is enabled in the kernel doesn't mean that > > firmware signatures will be verified. ?That is a run time policy > > decision. > > Sure, I accept this if IMA does not do signature verification. However > signature verification seems like a stackable LSM decision, no? IMA-appraisal can be configured to enforce file signatures. ?Refer to discussion below as to how. > > > If we however want to make it clear that such things as > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are not required when IMA is enabled we > > > could just make the kconfig depend on !IMA or something? Or perhaps a new > > > kconfig for IMA which if selected it means that drivers can opt to open code > > > *further* kernel signature verification, even though IMA already is sufficient. > > > Perhaps CONFIG_ENABLE_IMA_OVERLAPPING, and the driver depends on it? > > > > The existing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE is not enough. ?If there was a build > > time IMA config that translated into an IMA policy requiring firmware > > signature verification (eg. CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE), this could > > be sorted out at build time. > > I see makes sense. Ok, so instead of introducing READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB, I'll post patches introducing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE, as described above. > > > > > Assigning a different id for regdb signed firmware allows LSMs and IMA > > > > to handle regdb files differently. > > > > > > That's not the main concern here, its the precedent we are setting here for > > > any new kernel interface which open codes firmware signing on its own. What > > > you are doing means other kernel users who open codes their own firmware > > > signing may need to add yet-another reading ID. That doesn't either look > > > well on code, and seems kind of silly from a coding perspective given > > > the above, in which I clarify IMA still is doing its own appraisal on it. > > > > Suppose, > > > > 1. Either CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB or > > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE" would be configured at build. > > > > 2. If CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is configured, not > > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE", a custom IMA-policy rule that > > appraises the firmware signature could be defined. ?In this case, both > > signature verification methods would be enforced. > > > > then READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB would not be needed. > > True, however I'm suggesting that CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB > could just be a mini subsystem stackable LSM. Yes, writing regdb as a micro/mini LSM sounds reasonable. ?The LSM would differentiate between other firmware and the regulatory.db based on the firmware's pathname. Making regdb an LSM would have the same issues as currently - deciding if regdb, IMA-appraisal, or both verify the regdb's signature. Mimi -- 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:36930 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965524AbeEIT5a (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 15:57:30 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w49Jsi0o040299 for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 15:57:29 -0400 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.110]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2hv35rwfc1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 09 May 2018 15:57:29 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 9 May 2018 20:57:27 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] firmware: differentiate between signed regulatory.db and other firmware From: Mimi Zohar To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-wireless , Kalle Valo , Seth Forshee , Johannes Berg , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede , Ard Biesheuvel , Peter Jones , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Kees Cook , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andres Rodriguez , Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 15:57:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> References: <1525182503-13849-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1525182503-13849-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180504000743.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> <1525393466.3539.133.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180508173404.GG27853@wotan.suse.de> <1525865428.3551.175.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1525895838.3551.247.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 19:15 +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > If both are enabled, do we require both signatures or is one enough. > > > > > > Good question. Considering it as a stacked LSM (although not implemented > > > as one), I'd say its up to who enabled the Kconfig entries. If IMA and > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are enabled then both. If someone enabled > > > IMA though, then surely I agree that enabling > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is stupid and redundant, but its up to the > > > system integrator to decide. > > > > Just because IMA-appraisal is enabled in the kernel doesn't mean that > > firmware signatures will be verified. That is a run time policy > > decision. > > Sure, I accept this if IMA does not do signature verification. However > signature verification seems like a stackable LSM decision, no? IMA-appraisal can be configured to enforce file signatures. Refer to discussion below as to how. > > > If we however want to make it clear that such things as > > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are not required when IMA is enabled we > > > could just make the kconfig depend on !IMA or something? Or perhaps a new > > > kconfig for IMA which if selected it means that drivers can opt to open code > > > *further* kernel signature verification, even though IMA already is sufficient. > > > Perhaps CONFIG_ENABLE_IMA_OVERLAPPING, and the driver depends on it? > > > > The existing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE is not enough. If there was a build > > time IMA config that translated into an IMA policy requiring firmware > > signature verification (eg. CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE), this could > > be sorted out at build time. > > I see makes sense. Ok, so instead of introducing READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB, I'll post patches introducing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE, as described above. > > > > > Assigning a different id for regdb signed firmware allows LSMs and IMA > > > > to handle regdb files differently. > > > > > > That's not the main concern here, its the precedent we are setting here for > > > any new kernel interface which open codes firmware signing on its own. What > > > you are doing means other kernel users who open codes their own firmware > > > signing may need to add yet-another reading ID. That doesn't either look > > > well on code, and seems kind of silly from a coding perspective given > > > the above, in which I clarify IMA still is doing its own appraisal on it. > > > > Suppose, > > > > 1. Either CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB or > > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE" would be configured at build. > > > > 2. If CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is configured, not > > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE", a custom IMA-policy rule that > > appraises the firmware signature could be defined. In this case, both > > signature verification methods would be enforced. > > > > then READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB would not be needed. > > True, however I'm suggesting that CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB > could just be a mini subsystem stackable LSM. Yes, writing regdb as a micro/mini LSM sounds reasonable. The LSM would differentiate between other firmware and the regulatory.db based on the firmware's pathname. Making regdb an LSM would have the same issues as currently - deciding if regdb, IMA-appraisal, or both verify the regdb's signature. Mimi