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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 347EFC282CB for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E13217D6 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727524AbfBESwl (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:52:41 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:50812 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728587AbfBESwk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:52:40 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x15Immms030885 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:52:39 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qfe9p5x76-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:52:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:36 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:34 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x15IqWo860883126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:33 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12E8A4053; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC710A4055; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.107.43]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules From: Mimi Zohar To: Seth Forshee Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu , Luis Chamberlain , David Howells , Justin Forbes , Matthew Garrett Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:52:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20190205183201.GA3218@ubuntu-xps13> References: <1548962339-10681-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1548962339-10681-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <20190205151859.GD16362@ubuntu-xps13> <1549385244.4146.148.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190205183201.GA3218@ubuntu-xps13> 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: 19020518-0008-0000-0000-000002BC7927 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19020518-0009-0000-0000-000022287CC0 Message-Id: <1549392741.4146.161.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-05_08:,, 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=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902050143 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 12:32 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:47:24AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Hi Seth, > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 09:18 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Require signed kernel modules on systems with secure boot mode enabled. > > > > > > > > To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA > > > > signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if > > > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled. > > > > > > > > This patch defines a function named set_module_sig_required() and renames > > > > is_module_sig_enforced() to is_module_sig_enforced_or_required(). The > > > > call to set_module_sig_required() is dependent on CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > > being enabled. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar > > > > > > With respect to interactions with the kernel lockdown patches, this > > > looks better than the patches I saw previously. I don't feel like I know > > > enough about what's going on with IMA to ack the patch, but I feel > > > confident that it's at least not going to break signature enforcement > > > for us. > > > > Thank you for testing!  Could this be translated into a "tested-by" > > "(for w/lockdown patches)"? > > Yeah, that's fine. To be clear about what I tested, I've confirmed that > it doesn't interfere with requiring signed modules under lockdown with > CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=n and IMA appraisal enabled. > > Tested-by: Seth Forshee Oh!  You've disabled the coordination of the two signature verification methods.  Any chance you could test with "CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY" enabled? Mimi