All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
	paul@paul-moore.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: [PATCH v7 14/28] IMA: Change internal interfaces to use lsmblobs
Date: Wed,  7 Aug 2019 12:43:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190807194410.9762-15-casey@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190807194410.9762-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com>

The IMA interfaces ima_get_action() and ima_match_policy()
call LSM functions that use lsmblobs. Change the IMA functions
to pass the lsmblob to be compatible with the LSM functions.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
---
 security/integrity/ima/ima.h          | 10 ++++++----
 security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c      |  9 +++++----
 security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c |  4 +---
 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c     | 27 +++++++++++----------------
 security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c   | 12 ++++++------
 5 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
index 5a337239d9e4..73b3b15dec5c 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
@@ -192,8 +192,9 @@ enum ima_hooks {
 };
 
 /* LIM API function definitions */
-int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
-		   int mask, enum ima_hooks func, int *pcr);
+int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred,
+		   struct lsmblob *blob, int mask, enum ima_hooks func,
+		   int *pcr);
 int ima_must_measure(struct inode *inode, int mask, enum ima_hooks func);
 int ima_collect_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
 			    struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size,
@@ -213,8 +214,9 @@ void ima_free_template_entry(struct ima_template_entry *entry);
 const char *ima_d_path(const struct path *path, char **pathbuf, char *filename);
 
 /* IMA policy related functions */
-int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
-		     enum ima_hooks func, int mask, int flags, int *pcr);
+int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred,
+		     struct lsmblob *blob, enum ima_hooks func, int mask,
+		     int flags, int *pcr);
 void ima_init_policy(void);
 void ima_update_policy(void);
 void ima_update_policy_flag(void);
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
index c7505fb122d4..94b2a4840d81 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ void ima_add_violation(struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
  * ima_get_action - appraise & measure decision based on policy.
  * @inode: pointer to inode to measure
  * @cred: pointer to credentials structure to validate
- * @secid: secid of the task being validated
+ * @blob: LSM data of the task being validated
  * @mask: contains the permission mask (MAY_READ, MAY_WRITE, MAY_EXEC,
  *        MAY_APPEND)
  * @func: caller identifier
@@ -175,14 +175,15 @@ void ima_add_violation(struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
  * Returns IMA_MEASURE, IMA_APPRAISE mask.
  *
  */
-int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
-		   int mask, enum ima_hooks func, int *pcr)
+int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred,
+		   struct lsmblob *blob, int mask, enum ima_hooks func,
+		   int *pcr)
 {
 	int flags = IMA_MEASURE | IMA_AUDIT | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_HASH;
 
 	flags &= ima_policy_flag;
 
-	return ima_match_policy(inode, cred, secid, func, mask, flags, pcr);
+	return ima_match_policy(inode, cred, blob, func, mask, flags, pcr);
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
index 85c7692fc4a3..3ff7aae81829 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
@@ -50,15 +50,13 @@ bool is_ima_appraise_enabled(void)
  */
 int ima_must_appraise(struct inode *inode, int mask, enum ima_hooks func)
 {
-	u32 secid;
 	struct lsmblob blob;
 
 	if (!ima_appraise)
 		return 0;
 
 	security_task_getsecid(current, &blob);
-	lsmblob_secid(&blob, &secid);
-	return ima_match_policy(inode, current_cred(), secid, func, mask,
+	return ima_match_policy(inode, current_cred(), &blob, func, mask,
 				IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_HASH, NULL);
 }
 
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index 1afb75a893af..0588dd9a88db 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -169,8 +169,8 @@ void ima_file_free(struct file *file)
 }
 
 static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred,
-			       u32 secid, char *buf, loff_t size, int mask,
-			       enum ima_hooks func)
+			       struct lsmblob *blob, char *buf, loff_t size,
+			       int mask, enum ima_hooks func)
 {
 	struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
 	struct integrity_iint_cache *iint = NULL;
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred,
 	 * bitmask based on the appraise/audit/measurement policy.
 	 * Included is the appraise submask.
 	 */
-	action = ima_get_action(inode, cred, secid, mask, func, &pcr);
+	action = ima_get_action(inode, cred, blob, mask, func, &pcr);
 	violation_check = ((func == FILE_CHECK || func == MMAP_CHECK) &&
 			   (ima_policy_flag & IMA_MEASURE));
 	if (!action && !violation_check)
@@ -339,8 +339,7 @@ int ima_file_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long prot)
 
 	if (file && (prot & PROT_EXEC)) {
 		security_task_getsecid(current, &blob);
-		/* scaffolding - until process_measurement changes */
-		return process_measurement(file, current_cred(), blob.secid[0],
+		return process_measurement(file, current_cred(), &blob,
 					   NULL, 0, MAY_EXEC, MMAP_CHECK);
 	}
 
@@ -366,16 +365,14 @@ int ima_bprm_check(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
 	struct lsmblob blob;
 
 	security_task_getsecid(current, &blob);
-	/* scaffolding until process_measurement changes */
-	ret = process_measurement(bprm->file, current_cred(), blob.secid[0],
-				  NULL, 0, MAY_EXEC, BPRM_CHECK);
+	ret = process_measurement(bprm->file, current_cred(), &blob, NULL, 0,
+				  MAY_EXEC, BPRM_CHECK);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
 	security_cred_getsecid(bprm->cred, &blob);
-	/* scaffolding until process_measurement changes */
-	return process_measurement(bprm->file, bprm->cred, blob.secid[0],
-				   NULL, 0, MAY_EXEC, CREDS_CHECK);
+	return process_measurement(bprm->file, bprm->cred, &blob, NULL, 0,
+				   MAY_EXEC, CREDS_CHECK);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -393,8 +390,7 @@ int ima_file_check(struct file *file, int mask)
 	struct lsmblob blob;
 
 	security_task_getsecid(current, &blob);
-	/* scaffolding until process_measurement changes */
-	return process_measurement(file, current_cred(), blob.secid[0], NULL, 0,
+	return process_measurement(file, current_cred(), &blob, NULL, 0,
 				   mask & (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC |
 					   MAY_APPEND), FILE_CHECK);
 }
@@ -526,9 +522,8 @@ int ima_post_read_file(struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size,
 
 	func = read_idmap[read_id] ?: FILE_CHECK;
 	security_task_getsecid(current, &blob);
-	/* scaffolding until process_measurement changes */
-	return process_measurement(file, current_cred(), blob.secid[0], buf,
-				   size, MAY_READ, func);
+	return process_measurement(file, current_cred(), &blob, buf, size,
+				   MAY_READ, func);
 }
 
 /**
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index 92ee3d984c73..dbad256aa7b4 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ static void ima_lsm_update_rules(void)
  * Returns true on rule match, false on failure.
  */
 static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode,
-			    const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
+			    const struct cred *cred, struct lsmblob *blob,
 			    enum ima_hooks func, int mask)
 {
 	int i;
@@ -345,7 +345,6 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode,
 		case LSM_SUBJ_USER:
 		case LSM_SUBJ_ROLE:
 		case LSM_SUBJ_TYPE:
-			lsmblob_init(&blob, secid);
 			rc = security_filter_rule_match(&blob,
 							rule->lsm[i].type,
 							Audit_equal,
@@ -394,7 +393,7 @@ static int get_subaction(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, enum ima_hooks func)
  * @inode: pointer to an inode for which the policy decision is being made
  * @cred: pointer to a credentials structure for which the policy decision is
  *        being made
- * @secid: LSM secid of the task to be validated
+ * @blob: LSM data of the task to be validated
  * @func: IMA hook identifier
  * @mask: requested action (MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE | MAY_APPEND | MAY_EXEC)
  * @pcr: set the pcr to extend
@@ -406,8 +405,9 @@ static int get_subaction(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, enum ima_hooks func)
  * list when walking it.  Reads are many orders of magnitude more numerous
  * than writes so ima_match_policy() is classical RCU candidate.
  */
-int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
-		     enum ima_hooks func, int mask, int flags, int *pcr)
+int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred,
+		     struct lsmblob *blob, enum ima_hooks func, int mask,
+		     int flags, int *pcr)
 {
 	struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
 	int action = 0, actmask = flags | (flags << 1);
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
 		if (!(entry->action & actmask))
 			continue;
 
-		if (!ima_match_rules(entry, inode, cred, secid, func, mask))
+		if (!ima_match_rules(entry, inode, cred, blob, func, mask))
 			continue;
 
 		action |= entry->flags & IMA_ACTION_FLAGS;
-- 
2.20.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-08-07 19:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-07 19:43 [PATCH v7 00/28] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 01/28] LSM: Infrastructure management of the superblock Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 02/28] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 03/28] LSM: Infrastructure management of the key blob Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 04/28] LSM: Create and manage the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 05/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 06/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 07/28] net: Prepare UDS for security module stacking Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 08/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 09/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 10/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 11/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_task_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 12/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 13/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 15/28] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler
2019-08-08 21:39   ` Kees Cook
2019-08-08 23:38     ` Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 16/28] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:43 ` [PATCH v7 17/28] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 18/28] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_dentry_init_security Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 19/28] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 20/28] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 21/28] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 22/28] SELinux: Verify LSM display sanity in binder Casey Schaufler
2019-08-08 21:55   ` Kees Cook
2019-08-09  0:56     ` Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 23/28] Audit: Add subj_LSM fields when necessary Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 24/28] Audit: Include object data for all security modules Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 25/28] LSM: Provide an user space interface for the default display Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 26/28] NET: Add SO_PEERCONTEXT for multiple LSMs Casey Schaufler
2019-08-08 22:21   ` Kees Cook
2019-08-09  0:18     ` Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 27/28] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler
2019-08-08 22:22   ` Kees Cook
2019-08-09  0:23     ` Casey Schaufler
2019-08-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v7 28/28] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler

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=20190807194410.9762-15-casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.