From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AF6C433E1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11EB72070B for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:17:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 11EB72070B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-203-oQ4J4gFdPH-EE_EiSOJLBQ-1; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 21:17:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: oQ4J4gFdPH-EE_EiSOJLBQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A2D107ACCA; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B5E709E1; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943F197548; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 079HGfmL004769 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:16:41 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 67172F7FBF; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast05.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 627ECF7FCA for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 177E7805B00 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-205-ZfuF7XAxNWG0uRH_IGBudA-1; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:16:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ZfuF7XAxNWG0uRH_IGBudA-1 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 079H3DTj149707; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:16:32 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32sr4qdvbx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:16:32 -0400 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 079H3Fof149899; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:16:31 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32sr4qdvbj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:16:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 079HG5EI011619; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:29 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32skp81cqv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 17:16:29 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 079HGRT320054392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:27 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4105F11C058; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B839C11C050; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-f45666cc-3089-11b2-a85c-c57d1a57929f.ibm.com (unknown [9.160.25.223]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:16:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) From: Mimi Zohar To: Chuck Lever , James Morris , James Bottomley Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:16:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <329E8DBA-049E-4959-AFD4-9D118DEB176E@gmail.com> References: <20200728213614.586312-1-deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com> <20200802115545.GA1162@bug> <20200802140300.GA2975990@sasha-vm> <20200802143143.GB20261@amd> <1596386606.4087.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1596639689.3457.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <329E8DBA-049E-4959-AFD4-9D118DEB176E@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-09_09:2020-08-06, 2020-08-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008090130 X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false; X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 21:17:20 -0400 Cc: snitzer@redhat.com, Deven Bowers , dm-devel@redhat.com, tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, Pavel Machek , Paul, agk@redhat.com, Sasha Levin , Jonathan Corbet , nramas@linux.microsoft.com, serge@hallyn.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, Jann Horn , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Jens Axboe , mdsakib@microsoft.com, open list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > > which makes validating file integrity so much easier. From the > > beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures should be included in > > the measurement list. (I thought someone signed on to add that support > > to IMA, but have not yet seen anything.) > > Mimi, when you and I discussed this during LSS NA 2019, I didn't fully > understand that you expected me to implement signed Merkle trees for all > filesystems. At the time, it sounded to me like you wanted signed Merkle > trees only for NFS files. Is that still the case? I definitely do not expect you to support signed Merkle trees for all filesystems. My interested is from an IMA perspective of measuring and verifying the fs-verity Merkle tree root (and header info) signature. This is independent of which filesystems support it. > > The first priority (for me, anyway) therefore is getting the ability to > move IMA metadata between NFS clients and servers shoveled into the NFS > protocol, but that's been blocked for various legal reasons. Up to now, verifying remote filesystem file integrity has been out of scope for IMA. With fs-verity file signatures I can at least grasp how remote file integrity could possibly work. I don't understand how remote file integrity with existing IMA formats could be supported. You might want to consider writing a whitepaper, which could later be used as the basis for a patch set cover letter. Mimi > > IMO we need agreement from everyone (integrity developers, FS > implementers, and Linux distributors) that a signed Merkle tree IMA > metadata format, stored in either an xattr or appended to an executable > file, will be the way forward for IMA in all filesystems. -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit