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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 BD3DDC433E0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FA02076B for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="tEokO3hI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727094AbgHJQgb (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:36:31 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:17280 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725873AbgHJQgb (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:36:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07AGWeGG019110; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:36:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=kMrMRyqWQzI9XLcDnZA9dEhh6Lfjbkrw/za3vv1K64M=; b=tEokO3hIFCI5G2/SkclQWDqPE79KYCiYicfsVRP2w4yIWoGz8r+tZmhAn+zFmzzI20HP bps0Bwlxhp3fMhL0rhZQUUyQo/Uq4seAZGm9UyGjUvJIXK1IkQWB4hhXgfHj9WmhxECF dNfW/AeSaK+JxaSpT7I6+qS+/+NweeicYdT4fimYSilpUo6XOa2i5nMGPGP9sEyzTUyO Pd6vD+jt2nY7jwSPkqIa6w4FaNN05pe6Lu3ULRSg17NyYTiAuFPIH4v+x+R5URwLbwzm cPlrzWNff+PVccW9V908RSH5iWpx5YN4+mWIpVTudzK0ORrrcpuBsRhAg2xUO4QZpEao mA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32src1ja2q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:36:07 -0400 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 07AGYlH3024628; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:36:07 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32src1ja1n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:36:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07AGZZ1H008254; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:36:04 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32skahaf97-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:36:04 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 07AGa2XL60031394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:36:02 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6000911C04A; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:36:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA86511C058; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:35:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sig-9-65-241-154.ibm.com (unknown [9.65.241.154]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:35:56 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4664ab7dc3b324084df323bfa4670d5bfde76e66.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) From: Mimi Zohar To: James Bottomley , Chuck Lever , James Morris Cc: Deven Bowers , Pavel Machek , Sasha Levin , snitzer@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, agk@redhat.com, Paul Moore , Jonathan Corbet , nramas@linux.microsoft.com, serge@hallyn.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, Jann Horn , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Jens Axboe , mdsakib@microsoft.com, open list , eparis@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:35:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1597073737.3966.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20200728213614.586312-1-deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com> <20200802115545.GA1162@bug> <20200802140300.GA2975990@sasha-vm> <20200802143143.GB20261@amd> <1596386606.4087.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1596639689.3457.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <329E8DBA-049E-4959-AFD4-9D118DEB176E@gmail.com> <1597073737.3966.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-12.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-10_12:2020-08-06,2020-08-10 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=3 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008100119 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 08:35 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 13:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a > > > > need for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only > > > > filesystems, which makes validating file integrity so much > > > > easier. From the beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures > > > > should be included in the measurement list. (I thought someone > > > > signed on to add that support to IMA, but have not yet seen > > > > anything.) > > > > > > Mimi, when you and I discussed this during LSS NA 2019, I didn't > > > fully understand that you expected me to implement signed Merkle > > > trees for all filesystems. At the time, it sounded to me like you > > > wanted signed Merkle trees only for NFS files. Is that still the > > > case? > > > > I definitely do not expect you to support signed Merkle trees for all > > filesystems. My interested is from an IMA perspective of measuring > > and verifying the fs-verity Merkle tree root (and header info) > > signature. This is independent of which filesystems support it. > > > > > The first priority (for me, anyway) therefore is getting the > > > ability to move IMA metadata between NFS clients and servers > > > shoveled into the NFS protocol, but that's been blocked for various > > > legal reasons. > > > > Up to now, verifying remote filesystem file integrity has been out of > > scope for IMA. With fs-verity file signatures I can at least grasp > > how remote file integrity could possibly work. I don't understand > > how remote file integrity with existing IMA formats could be > > supported. You might want to consider writing a whitepaper, which > > could later be used as the basis for a patch set cover letter. > > I think, before this, we can help with the basics (and perhaps we > should sort them out before we start documenting what we'll do). I'm not opposed to doing that, but you're taking this discussion in a totally different direction. The current discussion is about NFSv4 supporting the existing IMA signatures, not only fs-verity signatures. I'd like to understand how that is possible and for the community to weigh in on whether it makes sense. > The > first basic is that a merkle tree allows unit at a time verification. > First of all we should agree on the unit. Since we always fault a page > at a time, I think our merkle tree unit should be a page not a block. > Next, we should agree where the check gates for the per page accesses > should be ... definitely somewhere in readpage, I suspect and finally > we should agree how the merkle tree is presented at the gate. I think > there are three ways: > > 1. Ahead of time transfer: The merkle tree is transferred and verified > at some time before the accesses begin, so we already have a > verified copy and can compare against the lower leaf. > 2. Async transfer: We provide an async mechanism to transfer the > necessary components, so when presented with a unit, we check the > log n components required to get to the root > 3. The protocol actually provides the capability of 2 (like the SCSI > DIF/DIX), so to IMA all the pieces get presented instead of IMA > having to manage the tree > > There are also a load of minor things like how we get the head hash, > which must be presented and verified ahead of time for each of the > above 3. I was under the impression that IMA support for fs-verity signatures would be limited to including the fs-verity signature in the measurement list and verifying the fs-verity signature. As fs-verity is limited to immutable files, this could be done on file open. fs- verity would be responsible for enforcing the block/page data integrity. From a local filesystem perspective, I think that is all that is necessary. In terms of remote file systems, the main issue is transporting and storing the Merkle tree. As fs-verity is limited to immutable files, this could still be done on file open. Mimi