Linux-Integrity Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
	dhowells@redhat.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
	sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] IMA: Defined an IMA hook to measure keys on key create or update
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:53:08 -0500
Message-ID: <1573159988.5028.400.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7ce84aa0-729e-c58e-f16a-25490b4e336d@linux.microsoft.com>

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 10:42 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 11/6/2019 7:40 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> >>> I would move the patch that defines the "keyring=" policy option prior
> >>> to this one.  Include the call to process_buffer_measurement() in this
> >>> patch.  A subsequent patch would add support to defer measuring the
> >>> key, by calling a function named something like
> >>> ima_queue_key_measurement().
> >>>
> >>
> >> As I'd stated in the other response, I wanted to isolate all key related
> >> code in a separate C file and build it if and only if all CONFIG
> >> dependencies are met.
> > 
> > The basic measuring of keys shouldn't be any different than any other
> > policy rule, other than it is a key and not a file.  This is the
> > reason that I keep saying start out with the basics and then add
> > support to defer measuring keys on the trusted keyrings.
> 
> I'll make the changes, rearrange the patches and send an updated set.
> 
> I do have a few questions since I am still not fully understanding the 
> requirements you are targeting. Appreciate if you could please clarify.
> 
> As you already know, I am using the "public key" of the given asymmetric 
> key as the "buffer" to measure in process_buffer_measurement().
> 
> The measurement decision is not based on whether the keyring is a 
> trusted one or an untrusted one. As long as the IMA policy allows 
> (through the "keyrings=" option) the key will be measured.

We should be able to measure all keys being loaded onto any keyring or
onto a specific "keyring=".   This shouldn't be any different than any
other policy rule.  Once you have this basic feature working, you
would address loading keys during early boot.

> 
> Do you want only trusted keyrings to be allowed in the measurement?
> In my opinion, that decision should be deferred to whoever is setting up 
> the IMA policy.

Right, but it shouldn't be limited to just "trusted" keyrings.  This
way you can first test loading keys onto any keyring.

> 
> > Only the queueing code needed for measuring keys on the trusted
> > keyrings would be in a separate file.
> > 
> 
> The decision to process key immediately or defer (queue) is based on 
> whether IMA has been initialized or not. Keyring is not used for this 
> decision.
> 
> Could you please clarify how queuing is related to keyring's 
> trustworthiness?
> 
> The check for whether the key is an asymmetric one or not, and 
> extracting the "public key" if it is an asymmetric key needs to be in a 
> separate file to handle the CONFIG dependencies in IMA.

Queuing the keys should be independent of measuring the keys.
 Initially you would start with just measuring the key.  From a high
level it would look like:

    ima_post_key_create_or_update(...)
    {
       "measure key based on
    policy(key, keyring, ...)"
    }

This requires the IMA "keyring=" policy option support be defined
first.

Subsequently you would add key queuing support, and then update
ima_post_key_create_or_update().  It would look like:

        ima_post_key_create_or_update(...)
        {
            if (custom policy is loaded)
               "measure key based on policy(key, keyring, ...)"
            else
                "queue key(key, keyring)"
        }

Mimi


  reply index

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-06 19:01 [PATCH v4 0/10] KEYS: Measure keys when they are created or updated Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 01/10] IMA: Defined an IMA hook to measure keys on key create or update Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 22:43   ` Mimi Zohar
2019-11-07  0:21     ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-07  3:40       ` Mimi Zohar
2019-11-07 18:42         ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-07 20:53           ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2019-11-07 21:12             ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 02/10] IMA: Added KEYRING_CHECK func in IMA policy to measure keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 03/10] IMA: Added keyrings= option in IMA policy to only measure keys added to the specified keyrings Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 04/10] IMA: Read keyrings= option from the IMA policy into ima_rule_entry Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 05/10] IMA: Updated IMA policy functions to return keyrings option read from the policy Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 06/10] IMA: Measure key if the IMA policy allows measurement for the keyring to which the key is linked to Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 07/10] IMA: Added a boolean flag to track IMA initialization status Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 08/10] IMA: Defined functions to queue and dequeue keys for measurement Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 22:44   ` Mimi Zohar
2019-11-06 23:52     ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-07  2:20     ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 09/10] IMA: Call queue and dequeue functions to measure keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-11-06 19:01 ` [PATCH v4 10/10] KEYS: Call the IMA hook to measure key when a new key is created or an existing key is updated Lakshmi Ramasubramanian

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=1573159988.5028.400.camel@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthewgarrett@google.com \
    --cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=sashal@kernel.org \
    /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

Linux-Integrity Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/0 linux-integrity/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-integrity linux-integrity/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity \
		linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-integrity

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-integrity


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git