| Message ID | 20200427103128.19229-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/6] ima: Set file->f_mode instead of file->f_flags in ima_calc_file_hash() | expand |
Hi Roberto, On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:31 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > This patch fixes the return value of ima_write_policy() when a new policy > is directly passed to IMA and the current policy requires appraisal of the > file containing the policy. Currently, if appraisal is not in ENFORCE mode, > ima_write_policy() returns 0 and leads user space applications to an > endless loop. Fix this issue by denying the operation regardless of the > appraisal mode. > > Changelog > > v1: > - deny the operation in all cases (suggested by Mimi, Krzysztof) Relatively recently, people have moved away from including the "Changelog" in the upstream commit. (I'm removing them now.) > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.10.x > Fixes: 19f8a84713edc ("ima: measure and appraise the IMA policy itself") > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> Without the Changelog, the only way of acknowledging people's contributions is by including their tags. Krzysztof, did you want to add your "Reviewed-by" tag? > --- People have started putting the Changelog or any comments immediately below the separator "---" here. thanks, Mimi > security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > index 8b030a1c5e0d..e3fcad871861 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > @@ -338,8 +338,7 @@ static ssize_t ima_write_policy(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, > integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS, NULL, NULL, > "policy_update", "signed policy required", > 1, 0); > - if (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) > - result = -EACCES; > + result = -EACCES; > } else { > result = ima_parse_add_rule(data); > }
Hi Mimi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@linux.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:47 PM > To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>; Krzysztof Struczynski > <krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com> > Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org; linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Silviu Vlasceanu > <Silviu.Vlasceanu@huawei.com>; Krzysztof Struczynski > <krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com>; stable@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ima: Fix return value of ima_write_policy() > > Hi Roberto, > > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:31 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > This patch fixes the return value of ima_write_policy() when a new > > policy is directly passed to IMA and the current policy requires > > appraisal of the file containing the policy. Currently, if appraisal > > is not in ENFORCE mode, > > ima_write_policy() returns 0 and leads user space applications to an > > endless loop. Fix this issue by denying the operation regardless of > > the appraisal mode. > > > > Changelog > > > > v1: > > - deny the operation in all cases (suggested by Mimi, Krzysztof) > > Relatively recently, people have moved away from including the "Changelog" > in the upstream commit. (I'm removing them now.) > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.10.x > > Fixes: 19f8a84713edc ("ima: measure and appraise the IMA policy > > itself") > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> > > Without the Changelog, the only way of acknowledging people's contributions > is by including their tags. Krzysztof, did you want to add your "Reviewed-by" > tag? Please add: Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Struczynski <krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com> Thanks, Krzysztof > > > --- > > People have started putting the Changelog or any comments immediately > below the separator "---" here. > > thanks, > > Mimi > > > security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > > b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c index 8b030a1c5e0d..e3fcad871861 > > 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > > @@ -338,8 +338,7 @@ static ssize_t ima_write_policy(struct file *file, const > char __user *buf, > > integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS, NULL, NULL, > > "policy_update", "signed policy required", > > 1, 0); > > - if (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) > > - result = -EACCES; > > + result = -EACCES; > > } else { > > result = ima_parse_add_rule(data); > > }
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c index 8b030a1c5e0d..e3fcad871861 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c @@ -338,8 +338,7 @@ static ssize_t ima_write_policy(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS, NULL, NULL, "policy_update", "signed policy required", 1, 0); - if (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE) - result = -EACCES; + result = -EACCES; } else { result = ima_parse_add_rule(data); }
This patch fixes the return value of ima_write_policy() when a new policy is directly passed to IMA and the current policy requires appraisal of the file containing the policy. Currently, if appraisal is not in ENFORCE mode, ima_write_policy() returns 0 and leads user space applications to an endless loop. Fix this issue by denying the operation regardless of the appraisal mode. Changelog v1: - deny the operation in all cases (suggested by Mimi, Krzysztof) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.10.x Fixes: 19f8a84713edc ("ima: measure and appraise the IMA policy itself") Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> --- security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)