Linux-Security-Module Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Deven Bowers <>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <>,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 13:46:00 -0700
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 5/11/2020 11:03 AM, Deven Bowers wrote:
> On 5/10/2020 2:28 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> [...snip]
>>> Additionally, rules are evaluated top-to-bottom. As a result, any
>>> revocation rules, or denies should be placed early in the file to ensure
>>> that these rules are evaluated before a rule with "action=ALLOW" is hit.
>>> IPE policy is designed to be forward compatible and backwards 
>>> compatible,
>>> thus any failure to parse a rule will result in the line being ignored,
>>> and a warning being emitted. If backwards compatibility is not required,
>>> the kernel commandline parameter and sysctl, ipe.strict_parse can be
>>> enabled, which will cause these warnings to be fatal.
>> Ignoring unknown command may lead to inconsistent beaviors. To achieve
>> forward compatibility, I think it would be better to never ignore
>> unknown rule but to give a way to userspace to known what is the current
>> kernel ABI. This could be done with a securityfs file listing the
>> current policy grammar.
> That's a fair point. From a manual perspective, I think this is fine.
> A human-user can interpret a grammar successfully on their own when new
> syntax is introduced.
>  From a producing API perspective, I'd have to think about it a bit 
> more. Ideally, the grammar would be structured in such a way that the 
> userland
> interpreter of this grammar would not have to be updated once new syntax
> is introduced, avoiding the need to update the userland binary. To do so
> generically ("op=%s") is easy, but doesn't necessarily convey sufficient
> information (what happens when a new "op" token is introduced?). I think
> this may come down to regular expression representations of valid values
> for these tokens, which worries me as regular expressions are incredibly
> error-prone[1].
> I'll see what I can come up with regarding this.

I have not found a way that I like to expose some kind of grammar
through securityfs that can be understood by usermode to parse the
policy. Here's what I propose as a compromise:

	1. I remove the unknown command behavior. This address your
first point about inconsistent behaviors, and effectively removes the
strict_parse sysctl (as it is always enabled).

	2. I introduce a versioning system for the properties
themselves. The valid set of properties and their versions
can be found in securityfs, under say, ipe/config in a key=value
format where `key` indicates the understood token, and `value`
indicates their current version. For example:

	$ cat $SECURITYFS/ipe/config

if new syntax is introduced, the version number is increased.

	3. The format of those versions are documented as part of
the admin-guide around IPE. If user-mode at that point wants to rip
the documentation formats and correlate with the versioning, then
it fulfills the same functionality as above, with out the complexity
around exposing a parsing grammar and interpreting it on-the-fly.
Many of these are unlikely to move past version 1, however.


  reply index

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-15 16:25 deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/12] scripts: add ipe tooling to generate boot policy deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/12] security: add ipe lsm evaluation loop and audit system deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/12] security: add ipe lsm policy parser and policy loading deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/12] ipe: add property for trust of boot volume deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/12] fs: add security blob and hooks for block_device deven.desai
2020-04-22 16:42   ` James Morris
2020-04-22 16:55     ` Casey Schaufler
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/12] dm-verity: move signature check after tree validation deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/12] dm-verity: add bdev_setsecurity hook for dm-verity signature deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] ipe: add property for signed dmverity volumes deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] dm-verity: add bdev_setsecurity hook for root-hash deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] ipe: add property for dmverity roothash deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/12] documentation: add ipe documentation deven.desai
2020-04-15 16:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/12] cleanup: uapi/linux/audit.h deven.desai
2020-05-10  9:28 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE) Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-11 18:03   ` Deven Bowers
2020-05-12 20:46     ` Deven Bowers [this message]
2020-05-14 19:28       ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-16 22:14         ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2020-05-26 20:44           ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2020-05-29  8:18           ` Mickaël Salaün

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-Security-Module Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-security-module/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-security-module linux-security-module/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-security-module

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone