| Message ID | 20190516161257.6640-3-roberto.sassu@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/4] evm: check hash algorithm passed to init_desc() | expand |
On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@ > Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" } > default: "enforce" > > + ima_appraise_req_evm > + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests. As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command line options as possible. Is there a reason for not extending "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"? Mimi > + > ima_appraise_tcb [IMA] Deprecated. Use ima_policy= instead. > The builtin appraise policy appraises all files > owned by uid=0.
On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@ >> Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" } >> default: "enforce" >> >> + ima_appraise_req_evm >> + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests. > > As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command > line options as possible. Is there a reason for not extending > "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"? ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which probably is done when the system is in production. Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n? Thanks Roberto
On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:26 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@ > >> Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" } > >> default: "enforce" > >> > >> + ima_appraise_req_evm > >> + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests. > > > > As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command > > line options as possible. Is there a reason for not extending > > "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"? > > ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which > probably is done when the system is in production. > > Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if > CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n? Yes, that should be fine. It's making "ima_appraise" stricter. Mimi
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@ Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" } default: "enforce" + ima_appraise_req_evm + [IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests. + ima_appraise_tcb [IMA] Deprecated. Use ima_policy= instead. The builtin appraise policy appraises all files owned by uid=0. diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c index 5fb7127bbe68..a32ed5d7afd1 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c @@ -33,6 +33,14 @@ static int __init default_appraise_setup(char *str) __setup("ima_appraise=", default_appraise_setup); +static bool ima_appraise_req_evm; +static int __init appraise_req_evm_setup(char *str) +{ + ima_appraise_req_evm = true; + return 1; +} +__setup("ima_appraise_req_evm", appraise_req_evm_setup); + /* * is_ima_appraise_enabled - return appraise status * @@ -245,7 +253,11 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func, switch (status) { case INTEGRITY_PASS: case INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE: + break; case INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN: + if (ima_appraise_req_evm && + xattr_value->type != EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG) + goto out; break; case INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS: /* No EVM protected xattrs. */ case INTEGRITY_NOLABEL: /* No security.evm xattr. */
Currently, ima_appraise_measurement() ignores the EVM status when evm_verifyxattr() returns INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN. If a file has a valid security.ima xattr with type IMA_XATTR_DIGEST or IMA_XATTR_DIGEST_NG, ima_appraise_measurement() returns INTEGRITY_PASS regardless of the EVM status. The problem is that the EVM status is overwritten with the appraisal status. This patch mitigates the issue by selecting signature verification as the only method allowed for appraisal when EVM is not initialized. Since the new behavior might break user space, it must be turned on by adding ima_appraise_req_evm to the kernel command line. Fixes: 2fe5d6def1672 ("ima: integrity appraisal extension") Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +++ security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)