| Message ID | 1527616920-5415-6-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:01:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in > firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be > calling security_kernel_load_data() instead? That's up to Kees to decide as he added that hook, and knows what LSMs may be doing with it. From my perspective it is confusing to have that hook there so I think it could be removed now. Kees? Luis > > --- > > With an IMA policy requiring signed firmware, this patch prevents > the sysfs fallback method of loading firmware. > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> > --- > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > index a565d46084c2..4a87f78098c8 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > @@ -475,8 +475,10 @@ int ima_post_read_file(struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size, > > if (!file && read_id == READING_FIRMWARE) { > if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) && > - (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) > + (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) { > + pr_err("Prevent firmware loading_store.\n"); > return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ > + } > return 0; > } > > @@ -520,6 +522,12 @@ int ima_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id) > pr_err("impossible to appraise a kernel image without a file descriptor; try using kexec_file_load syscall.\n"); > return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ > } > + break; > + case LOADING_FIRMWARE: > + if (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) { > + pr_err("Prevent firmware sysfs fallback loading.\n"); > + return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ > + } > default: > break; > } > -- > 2.7.5 > >
On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 20:21 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:01:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in > > firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be > > calling security_kernel_load_data() instead? > > That's up to Kees to decide as he added that hook, and knows > what LSMs may be doing with it. From my perspective it is confusing > to have that hook there so I think it could be removed now. > > Kees? Commit 6593d92 ("firmware_class: perform new LSM checks") references two methods of loading firmware - filesystem-found firmware and demand-loaded blobs. I assume this call in firmware_loading_store() is the demand-loaded blobs. Does that method still exist? Is it still being used? > > Luis > > > > > --- > > > > With an IMA policy requiring signed firmware, this patch prevents > > the sysfs fallback method of loading firmware. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > > Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> > > --- > > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 10 +++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > index a565d46084c2..4a87f78098c8 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > @@ -475,8 +475,10 @@ int ima_post_read_file(struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size, > > > > if (!file && read_id == READING_FIRMWARE) { > > if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) && > > - (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) > > + (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) { > > + pr_err("Prevent firmware loading_store.\n"); > > return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ > > + } > > return 0; > > } > > > > @@ -520,6 +522,12 @@ int ima_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id) > > pr_err("impossible to appraise a kernel image without a file descriptor; try using kexec_file_load syscall.\n"); > > return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ > > } > > + break; > > + case LOADING_FIRMWARE: > > + if (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) { > > + pr_err("Prevent firmware sysfs fallback loading.\n"); > > + return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ > > + } > > default: > > break; > > } > > -- > > 2.7.5 > > > > >
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:39:55PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 20:21 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:01:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in > > > firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be > > > calling security_kernel_load_data() instead? > > > > That's up to Kees to decide as he added that hook, and knows > > what LSMs may be doing with it. From my perspective it is confusing > > to have that hook there so I think it could be removed now. > > > > Kees? > > Commit 6593d92 ("firmware_class: perform new LSM checks") references > two methods of loading firmware - filesystem-found firmware and > demand-loaded blobs. I assume this call in firmware_loading_store() > is the demand-loaded blobs. Does that method still exist? Is it > still being used? Yeah its the stupid sysfs interface. So likely loadpin needs porting as you IMA as you did. Luis
On Sat, 2018-06-02 at 00:46 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:39:55PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 20:21 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:01:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in > > > > firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be > > > > calling security_kernel_load_data() instead? > > > > > > That's up to Kees to decide as he added that hook, and knows > > > what LSMs may be doing with it. From my perspective it is confusing > > > to have that hook there so I think it could be removed now. > > > > > > Kees? > > > > Commit 6593d92 ("firmware_class: perform new LSM checks") references > > two methods of loading firmware - filesystem-found firmware and > > demand-loaded blobs. I assume this call in firmware_loading_store() > > is the demand-loaded blobs. Does that method still exist? Is it > > still being used? > > Yeah its the stupid sysfs interface. So likely loadpin needs porting > as you IMA as you did. In this case, it doesn't look like the call to security_kernel_post_read_file() should be changed, which means that all the LSMs and IMA still need to support !file. Mimi
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c index a565d46084c2..4a87f78098c8 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c @@ -475,8 +475,10 @@ int ima_post_read_file(struct file *file, void *buf, loff_t size, if (!file && read_id == READING_FIRMWARE) { if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) && - (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) + (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) { + pr_err("Prevent firmware loading_store.\n"); return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ + } return 0; } @@ -520,6 +522,12 @@ int ima_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id) pr_err("impossible to appraise a kernel image without a file descriptor; try using kexec_file_load syscall.\n"); return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ } + break; + case LOADING_FIRMWARE: + if (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE) { + pr_err("Prevent firmware sysfs fallback loading.\n"); + return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */ + } default: break; }
Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be calling security_kernel_load_data() instead? --- With an IMA policy requiring signed firmware, this patch prevents the sysfs fallback method of loading firmware. Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> --- security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)