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=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 F2CBDC04AB4 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:37:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEB520879 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:37:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726190AbfENWhO (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 May 2019 18:37:14 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:55464 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726148AbfENWhO (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 May 2019 18:37:14 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4EMauVB102469 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 18:37:13 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sg2xy0dhd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 18:37:12 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 14 May 2019 23:37:10 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 14 May 2019 23:37:07 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4EMb6Mq35192840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 May 2019 22:37:06 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEF9A4069; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:37:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9942AA4068; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:37:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dhcp-9-31-103-88.watson.ibm.com (unknown [9.31.103.88]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:37:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising From: Mimi Zohar To: Petr Vorel , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mimi Zohar , Nayna Jain Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 18:37:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190514220845.408-1-pvorel@suse.cz> References: <20190514220845.408-1-pvorel@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19051422-4275-0000-0000-00000334CBDE X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19051422-4276-0000-0000-000038444D69 Message-Id: <1557873425.4139.79.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-14_13:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=4 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905140148 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 00:08 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > Kernel booted just with ima_policy=tcb (not with > ima_policy=appraise_tcb) shouldn't require signed policy. > > Regression found with LTP test ima_policy.sh. > > Fixes: c52657d93b05 ("ima: refactor ima_init_policy()") > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel > --- > Hi, > > assuming behavior prior c52657d93b05 was correct. > BTW I admit that using global variable inside helper function is nasty. > > Kind regards, > Petr > > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > index e0cc323f948f..df0e6a1b063b 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ static void add_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *entries, int count, > } > if (entries[i].action == APPRAISE) > temp_ima_appraise |= ima_appraise_flag(entries[i].func); > - if (entries[i].func == POLICY_CHECK) > + if (ima_use_appraise_tcb && entries[i].func == POLICY_CHECK) > temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_POLICY; Instead of also testing "ima_use_appraise_tcb", try including the POLICY_CHECK as part of the APPRAISE condition. thanks! Mimi > } > }