Linux-Integrity Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
	Maurizio Drocco <maurizio.drocco@ibm.com>,
	"zohar@linux.ibm.com" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com" <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
	"jmorris@namei.org" <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"serge@hallyn.com" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Silviu Vlasceanu <Silviu.Vlasceanu@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] extend IMA boot_aggregate with kernel measurements
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:14:19 -0700
Message-ID: <1591982059.7235.29.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <380af929b2d2440a9dc35ba0b374247d@huawei.com>

On Fri, 2020-06-12 at 15:11 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> with recent patches, boot_aggregate can be calculated from non-SHA1
> PCR banks. I would replace with:
> 
> Extend cumulative digest over ...
> 
> Given that with this patch boot_aggregate is calculated differently,
> shouldn't we call it boot_aggregate_v2 and enable it with a new
> option?

So here's the problem: if your current grub doesn't do any TPM
extensions (as most don't), then the two boot aggregates are the same
because PCRs 8 and 9 are zero and there's a test that doesn't add them
to the aggregate if they are zero.  For these people its a nop so we
shouldn't force them to choose a different version of the same thing.

If, however, you're on a distribution where grub is automatically
measuring the kernel and command line into PCRs 8 and 9 (I think Fedora
32 does this), your boot aggregate will change.  It strikes me in that
case we can call this a bug fix, since the boot aggregate isn't
properly binding to the previous measurements without PCRs 8 and 9.  In
this case, do we want to allow people to select an option which doesn't
properly bind the IMA log to the boot measurements?  That sounds like a
security hole to me.

However, since it causes a user visible difference in the grub already
measures case, do you have a current use case that would be affected? 
As in are lots of people already running a distro with the TPM grub
updates and relying on the old boot aggregate?

James


  reply index

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-11 19:54 Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-12  0:29 ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-12 14:38   ` Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-12 15:11     ` Roberto Sassu
2020-06-12 17:14       ` James Bottomley [this message]
2020-06-16 17:29         ` Roberto Sassu
2020-06-16 18:11           ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-18 12:38             ` Roberto Sassu
2020-06-18 20:11               ` Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-18 20:11                 ` [PATCH] ima_evm_utils: extended calc_bootaggr to PCRs 8 - 9 Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-22 20:14                   ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-22  4:50                     ` [PATCH] ima: extend boot_aggregate with kernel measurements Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-23 14:03                       ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-23 15:57                         ` [PATCH v4] " Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-23 18:53                           ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-23 18:01                     ` [PATCH v2] ima_evm_utils: extended calc_bootaggr to PCRs 8 - 9 Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-23 18:13                       ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-24 21:17                         ` Stefan Berger
2020-06-24 21:33                           ` [PATCH] " Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-24 21:33                           ` [PATCH v2] " Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-24 21:35                             ` [PATCH v3] " Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-24 21:50                               ` Bruno Meneguele

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly 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=1591982059.7235.29.camel@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=Silviu.Vlasceanu@huawei.com \
    --cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maurizio.drocco@ibm.com \
    --cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
    /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