From: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr> To: Mimi Zohar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, BARVAUX Didier <Didier.BARVAUX@viveris.fr> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] IMA: introduce a new policy option func=SETXATTR_CHECK Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:38 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hello Mimi, On 7/27/21 7:25 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 16:33 +0000, THOBY Simon wrote: >> While users can restrict the accepted hash algorithms for the >> security.ima xattr file signature when appraising said file, users >> cannot restrict the algorithms that can be set on that attribute: >> any algorithm built in the kernel is accepted on a write. >> >> Define a new value for the ima policy option 'func' that restricts >> globally the hash algorithms accepted when writing the security.ima >> xattr. >> >> When a policy contains a rule of the form >> appraise func=SETXATTR_CHECK appraise_hash=sha256,sha384,sha512 >> only values corresponding to one of these three digest algorithms >> will be accepted for writing the security.ima xattr. >> Attempting to write the attribute using another algorithm (or "free-form" >> data) will be denied with an audit log message. >> In the absence of such a policy rule, the default is still to only >> accept hash algorithms built in the kernel (with all the limitations >> that entails). >> >> On policy update, the latest SETXATTR_CHECK rule is the only one >> that apply, and other SETXATTR_CHECK rules are deleted. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Thoby <email@example.com> > > Sorry, I was just getting to this patch, when you re-posted the patch > set. In the future, I'll make sure the responses are sent in quick > succession. > The mistake is mine, I will wait more between submission next time (and it would also be more reasonable of me to spam less the ML), sorry! > There are a number of assumptions related to the IMA policy: > - A builtin policy may be replaced by a custom policy. > - Depending on the Kconfig, the policy rules may not change be updated. > - Subsequent to replacing the builtin policy with a custom policy, > rules may only be appended, based on the Kconfig. > > The locking around the policy rules is dependent on these assumptions. > Removing policy rules is a major change that needs to be considered > carefully. Why should "func=SETXATTR_CHECK" be treated any > differently than any other policy rule? How would an attestation > server know which setxattr rule was enabled at the time the file was > appraised? > You're right, the "user convenience" gain is probably not much anyway, while the complexity burden arising from deleting nodes from a list in reverse order with potentially multiple concurrent readers is high, even with RCU doing most of the work. I will drop that in a future revision of the patchset. > thanks, > > Mimi > Many thanks for all the time you already spent on reviewing this work, Have a nice evening (or day, with timezones and all), Simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-27 17:58 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-07-27 16:33 [PATCH v4 0/5] IMA: restrict the accepted digest algorithms for THOBY Simon 2021-07-27 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] IMA: remove the dependency on CRYPTO_MD5 THOBY Simon 2021-07-27 17:57 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-27 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] IMA: block writes of the security.ima xattr with unsupported algorithms THOBY Simon 2021-07-27 20:32 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-28 7:00 ` THOBY Simon 2021-07-28 12:43 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-28 12:53 ` THOBY Simon 2021-07-28 13:09 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-27 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] IMA: add support to restrict the hash algorithms used for file appraisal THOBY Simon 2021-07-27 20:38 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-27 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] IMA: add a policy option to restrict xattr hash algorithms on appraisal THOBY Simon 2021-07-27 21:07 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-27 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] IMA: introduce a new policy option func=SETXATTR_CHECK THOBY Simon 2021-07-27 17:25 ` Mimi Zohar 2021-07-27 17:58 ` THOBY Simon [this message] 2021-07-27 17:47 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] IMA: restrict the accepted digest algorithms for Mimi Zohar
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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Didier.BARVAUX@viveris.fr \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] IMA: introduce a new policy option func=SETXATTR_CHECK' \ /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
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).