All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
	"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v35 05/29] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:50:44 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <286ba5a2-7399-b2b9-9846-e4235171db32@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220418145945.38797-6-casey@schaufler-ca.com>


On 4/18/2022 7:59 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Integrity measurement may filter on security module information
> and needs to be clear in the case of multiple active security
> modules which applies. Provide a boot option ima_rules_lsm= to
> allow the user to specify an active security module to apply
> filters to. If not specified, use the first registered module
> that supports the audit_rule_match() LSM hook. Allow the user
> to specify in the IMA policy an lsm= option to specify the
> security module to use for a particular rule.
>
> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> To: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org

Would it be possible to get feedback on the IMA portions
of the stacking patch set? I believe that I have addressed
previous issues. I need to wrap this up before too long.
Thank you.

> ---
>   Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy |  8 ++++-
>   include/linux/security.h             | 14 ++++----
>   security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c  | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   security/security.c                  | 35 +++++++++++++++----
>   4 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> index 839fab811b18..64863e9d87ea 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Description:
>   				[uid=] [euid=] [gid=] [egid=]
>   				[fowner=] [fgroup=]]
>   			lsm:	[[subj_user=] [subj_role=] [subj_type=]
> -				 [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]]
> +				 [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]] [lsm=]
>   			option:	[[appraise_type=]] [template=] [permit_directio]
>   				[appraise_flag=] [appraise_algos=] [keyrings=]
>   		  base:
> @@ -126,6 +126,12 @@ Description:
>   
>   			measure subj_user=_ func=FILE_CHECK mask=MAY_READ
>   
> +		It is possible to explicitly specify which security
> +		module a rule applies to using lsm=.  If the security
> +		module specified is not active on the system the rule
> +		will be rejected.  If lsm= is not specified the first
> +		security module registered on the system will be assumed.
> +
>   		Example of measure rules using alternate PCRs::
>   
>   			measure func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK pcr=4
> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> index d00870d2b416..3666eddad59a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/security.h
> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
> @@ -1985,25 +1985,27 @@ static inline void security_audit_rule_free(struct audit_lsm_rules *lsmrules)
>   #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
>   
>   #if defined(CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES) && defined(CONFIG_SECURITY)
> -int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr, void **lsmrule);
> -int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule);
> -void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule);
> +int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr, void **lsmrule,
> +			 int lsmslot);
> +int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule,
> +			  int lsmslot);
> +void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule, int lsmslot);
>   
>   #else
>   
>   static inline int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr,
> -					   void **lsmrule)
> +				       void **lsmrule, int lsmslot)
>   {
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
>   static inline int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op,
> -					    void *lsmrule)
> +					void *lsmrule, int lsmslot)
>   {
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static inline void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> +static inline void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule, int lsmslot)
>   { }
>   
>   #endif /* defined(CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES) && defined(CONFIG_SECURITY) */
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index eea6e92500b8..97470354c8ae 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
>   	bool (*fgroup_op)(kgid_t cred_gid, kgid_t rule_gid); /* gid_eq(), gid_gt(), gid_lt() */
>   	int pcr;
>   	unsigned int allowed_algos; /* bitfield of allowed hash algorithms */
> +	int which;		/* which LSM rule applies to */
>   	struct {
>   		void *rule;	/* LSM file metadata specific */
>   		char *args_p;	/* audit value */
> @@ -285,6 +286,20 @@ static int __init default_appraise_policy_setup(char *str)
>   }
>   __setup("ima_appraise_tcb", default_appraise_policy_setup);
>   
> +static int ima_rules_lsm __ro_after_init;
> +
> +static int __init ima_rules_lsm_init(char *str)
> +{
> +	ima_rules_lsm = lsm_name_to_slot(str);
> +	if (ima_rules_lsm < 0) {
> +		ima_rules_lsm = 0;
> +		pr_err("rule lsm \"%s\" not registered", str);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +__setup("ima_rules_lsm=", ima_rules_lsm_init);
> +
>   static struct ima_rule_opt_list *ima_alloc_rule_opt_list(const substring_t *src)
>   {
>   	struct ima_rule_opt_list *opt_list;
> @@ -356,7 +371,7 @@ static void ima_lsm_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
>   	int i;
>   
>   	for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
> -		ima_filter_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rule);
> +		ima_filter_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rule, entry->which);
>   		kfree(entry->lsm[i].args_p);
>   	}
>   }
> @@ -407,7 +422,8 @@ static struct ima_rule_entry *ima_lsm_copy_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
>   
>   		ima_filter_rule_init(nentry->lsm[i].type, Audit_equal,
>   				     nentry->lsm[i].args_p,
> -				     &nentry->lsm[i].rule);
> +				     &nentry->lsm[i].rule,
> +				     entry->which);
>   		if (!nentry->lsm[i].rule)
>   			pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
>   				nentry->lsm[i].args_p);
> @@ -623,14 +639,16 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
>   			security_inode_getsecid(inode, &osid);
>   			rc = ima_filter_rule_match(osid, rule->lsm[i].type,
>   						   Audit_equal,
> -						   rule->lsm[i].rule);
> +						   rule->lsm[i].rule,
> +						   rule->which);
>   			break;
>   		case LSM_SUBJ_USER:
>   		case LSM_SUBJ_ROLE:
>   		case LSM_SUBJ_TYPE:
>   			rc = ima_filter_rule_match(secid, rule->lsm[i].type,
>   						   Audit_equal,
> -						   rule->lsm[i].rule);
> +						   rule->lsm[i].rule,
> +						   rule->which);
>   			break;
>   		default:
>   			break;
> @@ -1025,7 +1043,7 @@ enum policy_opt {
>   	Opt_fowner_lt, Opt_fgroup_lt,
>   	Opt_appraise_type, Opt_appraise_flag, Opt_appraise_algos,
>   	Opt_permit_directio, Opt_pcr, Opt_template, Opt_keyrings,
> -	Opt_label, Opt_err
> +	Opt_lsm, Opt_label, Opt_err
>   };
>   
>   static const match_table_t policy_tokens = {
> @@ -1073,6 +1091,7 @@ static const match_table_t policy_tokens = {
>   	{Opt_template, "template=%s"},
>   	{Opt_keyrings, "keyrings=%s"},
>   	{Opt_label, "label=%s"},
> +	{Opt_lsm, "lsm=%s"},
>   	{Opt_err, NULL}
>   };
>   
> @@ -1091,7 +1110,8 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_rule_entry *entry,
>   	entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type = audit_type;
>   	result = ima_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type, Audit_equal,
>   				      entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p,
> -				      &entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule);
> +				      &entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule,
> +				      entry->which);
>   	if (!entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rule) {
>   		pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
>   			entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p);
> @@ -1780,6 +1800,19 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
>   						 &(template_desc->num_fields));
>   			entry->template = template_desc;
>   			break;
> +		case Opt_lsm:
> +			result = lsm_name_to_slot(args[0].from);
> +			if (result == LSMBLOB_INVALID) {
> +				int i;
> +
> +				for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++)
> +					entry->lsm[i].args_p = NULL;
> +				result = -EINVAL;
> +				break;
> +			}
> +			entry->which = result;
> +			result = 0;
> +			break;
>   		case Opt_err:
>   			ima_log_string(ab, "UNKNOWN", p);
>   			result = -EINVAL;
> @@ -1816,6 +1849,7 @@ ssize_t ima_parse_add_rule(char *rule)
>   	struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
>   	ssize_t result, len;
>   	int audit_info = 0;
> +	int i;
>   
>   	p = strsep(&rule, "\n");
>   	len = strlen(p) + 1;
> @@ -1833,6 +1867,9 @@ ssize_t ima_parse_add_rule(char *rule)
>   
>   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list);
>   
> +	for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++)
> +		entry->which = ima_rules_lsm;
> +
>   	result = ima_parse_rule(p, entry);
>   	if (result) {
>   		ima_free_rule(entry);
> @@ -2158,6 +2195,8 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>   		seq_puts(m, "appraise_flag=check_blacklist ");
>   	if (entry->flags & IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO)
>   		seq_puts(m, "permit_directio ");
> +	if (entry->which >= 0)
> +		seq_printf(m, pt(Opt_lsm), lsm_slot_to_name(entry->which));
>   	rcu_read_unlock();
>   	seq_puts(m, "\n");
>   	return 0;
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index d1ddbb857af1..9e0139b0d346 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -2728,19 +2728,42 @@ int security_audit_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op,
>    * The integrity subsystem uses the same hooks as
>    * the audit subsystem.
>    */
> -int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr, void **lsmrule)
> +int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr, void **lsmrule,
> +			 int lsmslot)
>   {
> -	return call_int_hook(audit_rule_init, 0, field, op, rulestr, lsmrule);
> +	struct security_hook_list *hp;
> +
> +	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.audit_rule_init, list)
> +		if (hp->lsmid->slot == lsmslot)
> +			return hp->hook.audit_rule_init(field, op, rulestr,
> +							lsmrule);
> +
> +	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> +void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule, int lsmslot)
>   {
> -	call_void_hook(audit_rule_free, lsmrule);
> +	struct security_hook_list *hp;
> +
> +	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.audit_rule_free, list) {
> +		if (hp->lsmid->slot == lsmslot) {
> +			hp->hook.audit_rule_free(lsmrule);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +	}
>   }
>   
> -int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule)
> +int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule,
> +			  int lsmslot)
>   {
> -	return call_int_hook(audit_rule_match, 0, secid, field, op, lsmrule);
> +	struct security_hook_list *hp;
> +
> +	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.audit_rule_match, list)
> +		if (hp->lsmid->slot == lsmslot)
> +			return hp->hook.audit_rule_match(secid, field, op,
> +							 lsmrule);
> +
> +	return 0;
>   }
>   #endif /* CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES */
>   

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-19 17:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 132+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20220418145945.38797-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 00/29] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 01/29] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:51     ` John Johansen
2022-04-21 16:51       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 02/29] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 03/29] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-26 23:15     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 23:15       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 04/29] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:50     ` John Johansen
2022-04-21 16:50       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 05/29] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-19 16:50     ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2022-04-20 19:23       ` Mimi Zohar
2022-04-20 21:15         ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21  3:22       ` Mimi Zohar
2022-04-21 16:50     ` John Johansen
2022-04-21 16:50       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 06/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:49     ` John Johansen
2022-04-21 16:49       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 07/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 08/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27  0:38     ` John Johansen
2022-04-27  0:38       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 09/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 10/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 11/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_current_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 12/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 13/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 18:02     ` kernel test robot
2022-04-18 18:02       ` kernel test robot
2022-04-19  0:41     ` kernel test robot
2022-04-19  0:41       ` kernel test robot
2022-04-19  0:51     ` kernel test robot
2022-04-19  0:51       ` kernel test robot
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 14/29] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 15/29] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 16/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 17/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 18/29] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 19/29] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 20/29] binder: Pass LSM identifier for confirmation Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 21/29] LSM: Extend security_secid_to_secctx to include module selection Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-25 23:32     ` John Johansen
2022-04-25 23:32       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 22/29] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-25 23:32     ` John Johansen
2022-04-25 23:32       ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 17:57       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 17:57         ` Paul Moore
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 23/29] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-25 23:31     ` John Johansen
2022-04-25 23:31       ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:03       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 18:03         ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 18:58         ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:58           ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 19:18           ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:18             ` Paul Moore
2022-04-27 15:49             ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27 15:49               ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27 16:02               ` Paul Moore
2022-04-27 16:02                 ` Paul Moore
2022-04-27 20:55                 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27 20:55                   ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 24/29] LSM: Add a function to report multiple LSMs Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:26     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-22 16:26       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-25 23:33     ` John Johansen
2022-04-25 23:33       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:27     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-22 16:27       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26  1:06     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26  1:06       ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:12       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 18:12         ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:01         ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 19:01           ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 26/29] Audit: Add record for multiple task security contexts Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:28     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-22 16:28       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26  1:08     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26  1:08       ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:15       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 18:15         ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:07         ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 19:07           ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 27/29] Audit: Add record for multiple object contexts Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:29     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-22 16:29       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26  3:37     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26  3:37       ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:57       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 18:57         ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:24         ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 19:24           ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 28/29] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22  8:37     ` John Johansen
2022-04-22  8:37       ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 29/29] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59     ` Casey Schaufler

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=286ba5a2-7399-b2b9-9846-e4235171db32@schaufler-ca.com \
    --to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=linux-integrity@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.