* [PATCH] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising
@ 2019-05-14 22:08 Petr Vorel
2019-05-14 22:37 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2019-05-14 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-integrity; +Cc: Petr Vorel, Mimi Zohar, Nayna Jain
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 <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
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;
}
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising
2019-05-14 22:08 [PATCH] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising Petr Vorel
@ 2019-05-14 22:37 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2019-05-14 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Vorel, linux-integrity; +Cc: Mimi Zohar, Nayna Jain
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 <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> 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
> }
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising
@ 2019-05-14 22:01 Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2019-05-14 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-integrity; +Cc: Petr Vorel, Mimi Zohar, Nayna Jain
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 <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
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;
}
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-14 22:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-05-14 22:08 [PATCH] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising Petr Vorel
2019-05-14 22:37 ` Mimi Zohar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-14 22:01 Petr Vorel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).