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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 7553FCA9EC0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC3B208C0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388727AbfJ1LzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:55:10 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:62758 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728802AbfJ1LzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:55:10 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9SBqmZ8135343 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:55:08 -0400 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vwwggcmc0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:55:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:55:06 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:55:01 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x9SBsxh127263030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:55:00 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D430E11C050; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:54:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD1811C04A; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:54:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.151.87]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:54:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] powerpc/ima: add support to initialize ima policy rules From: Mimi Zohar To: Nayna Jain , Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , Nayna Jain , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Ard Biesheuvel , Jeremy Kerr , Matthew Garret , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Claudio Carvalho , George Wilson , Elaine Palmer , Eric Ricther , "Oliver O'Halloran" , Prakhar Srivastava Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:54:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1572133923.4532.79.camel@linux.ibm.com> References: <20191024034717.70552-1-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <20191024034717.70552-3-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <27dbe08e-5473-4dd0-d2ad-2df591e23f5e@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1572133923.4532.79.camel@linux.ibm.com> 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: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19102811-0012-0000-0000-0000035E5E70 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19102811-0013-0000-0000-000021999B74 Message-Id: <1572263696.4532.240.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-28_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 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=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910280122 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 19:52 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 12:02 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > On 10/24/19 12:35 PM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > On 10/23/2019 8:47 PM, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > > >> +/* > > >> + * The "secure_rules" are enabled only on "secureboot" enabled systems. > > >> + * These rules verify the file signatures against known good values. > > >> + * The "appraise_type=imasig|modsig" option allows the known good > > >> signature > > >> + * to be stored as an xattr or as an appended signature. > > >> + * > > >> + * To avoid duplicate signature verification as much as possible, > > >> the IMA > > >> + * policy rule for module appraisal is added only if > > >> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE > > >> + * is not enabled. > > >> + */ > > >> +static const char *const secure_rules[] = { > > >> +    "appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig", > > >> +#ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE > > >> +    "appraise func=MODULE_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig", > > >> +#endif > > >> +    NULL > > >> +}; > > > > > > Is there any way to not use conditional compilation in the above array > > > definition? Maybe define different functions to get "secure_rules" for > > > when CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is defined and when it is not defined. > > > > How will you decide which function to be called ? > > You could call "is_module_sig_enforced()". Calling is_module_sig_enforce() would prevent verifying the same kernel module appended signature twice, when CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is enabled, but not CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE.  This comes at the expense of having to define additional policies. Unlike for the kernel image, there is no coordination between lockdown and IMA for kernel modules signature verification.  I suggest deferring defining additional policies to when the lockdown/IMA coordination is addressed. Mimi