| Message ID | 1519335184-17808-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in > environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the > signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for > example using a pre-built kernel. > > This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can How about recalc_unverifiable_sigs? It's long, but unverifiable_sigs is not clear about whether the intent is to accept or recalculate them. (or fail_unverifiable_sigs like the flag) > be specified on the boot command line as an argument to "ima_policy=". > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> > Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com> > Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> > Cc: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io> > Cc: Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io> > Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> > > Changelog v2: > - address the fail safe environement > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 8 +++++++- > security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 10 ++++++---- > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 3 ++- > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 5 +++++ > security/integrity/integrity.h | 1 + > 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > index 1d1d53f85ddd..c655cd8dbaa0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > @@ -1525,7 +1525,8 @@ > > ima_policy= [IMA] > The builtin policies to load during IMA setup. > - Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot" > + Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot | > + unverifiable_sigs" > > The "tcb" policy measures all programs exec'd, files > mmap'd for exec, and all files opened with the read > @@ -1540,6 +1541,11 @@ > of files (eg. kexec kernel image, kernel modules, > firmware, policy, etc) based on file signatures. > > + The "unverifiable_sigs" policy forces file signature > + verification failure on privileged mounted > + filesystems with the SB_I_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE > + flag. > + > ima_tcb [IMA] Deprecated. Use ima_policy= instead. > Load a policy which meets the needs of the Trusted > Computing Base. This means IMA will measure all > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > index f34901069e78..3034935e1eb3 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > @@ -304,11 +304,13 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func, > out: > /* > * File signatures on some filesystems can not be properly verified. > - * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter, > - * fail the file signature verification. > + * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter or > + * for systems not willing to accept the risk, fail the file signature > + * verification. > */ > - if (inode->i_sb->s_iflags & > - (SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE | SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER)) { > + if ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) && > + ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) || > + (iint->flags & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) { > status = INTEGRITY_FAIL; > cause = "unverifiable-signature"; > integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename, > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > index f550f25294a3..5d122daf5c8a 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > @@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred, > */ > if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags) || > ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) && > - !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER))) { > + !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) && > + !(action & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) { > iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK; > iint->measured_pcrs = 0; > } > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > index e3da29af2c16..ead3f7fe6998 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ __setup("ima_tcb", default_measure_policy_setup); > > static bool ima_use_appraise_tcb __initdata; > static bool ima_use_secure_boot __initdata; > +static bool ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs __ro_after_init; > static int __init policy_setup(char *str) > { > char *p; > @@ -201,6 +202,8 @@ static int __init policy_setup(char *str) > ima_use_appraise_tcb = true; > else if (strcmp(p, "secure_boot") == 0) > ima_use_secure_boot = true; > + else if (strcmp(p, "unverifiable_sigs") == 0) > + ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs = true; > } > > return 1; > @@ -390,6 +393,8 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid, > if (entry->action & IMA_APPRAISE) { > action |= get_subaction(entry, func); > action ^= IMA_HASH; > + if (ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs) > + action |= IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS; > } > > if (entry->action & IMA_DO_MASK) > diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h > index 843ae23ba0ac..8224880935e0 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h > +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ > #define IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO 0x02000000 > #define IMA_NEW_FILE 0x04000000 > #define EVM_IMMUTABLE_DIGSIG 0x08000000 > +#define IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS 0x10000000 > > #define IMA_DO_MASK (IMA_MEASURE | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_AUDIT | \ > IMA_HASH | IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK) > -- > 2.7.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:35 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in > > environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the > > signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for > > example using a pre-built kernel. > > > > This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can > > How about recalc_unverifiable_sigs? Cute, I really like that name, but in this case we're failing the signature verification. > It's long, but unverifiable_sigs > is not clear about whether the intent is to accept or recalculate them. > > (or fail_unverifiable_sigs like the flag) Could we abbreviate it to "fail_usigs"? Or perhaps allow both "fail_unverifiable_sigs" and "fail_usigs". Mimi > > > be specified on the boot command line as an argument to "ima_policy=". > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> > > Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com> > > Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> > > Cc: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io> > > Cc: Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io> > > Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> > > > > Changelog v2: > > - address the fail safe environement > > --- > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 8 +++++++- > > security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 10 ++++++---- > > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 3 ++- > > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 5 +++++ > > security/integrity/integrity.h | 1 + > > 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > index 1d1d53f85ddd..c655cd8dbaa0 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > @@ -1525,7 +1525,8 @@ > > > > ima_policy= [IMA] > > The builtin policies to load during IMA setup. > > - Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot" > > + Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot | > > + unverifiable_sigs" > > > > The "tcb" policy measures all programs exec'd, files > > mmap'd for exec, and all files opened with the read > > @@ -1540,6 +1541,11 @@ > > of files (eg. kexec kernel image, kernel modules, > > firmware, policy, etc) based on file signatures. > > > > + The "unverifiable_sigs" policy forces file signature > > + verification failure on privileged mounted > > + filesystems with the SB_I_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE > > + flag. > > + > > ima_tcb [IMA] Deprecated. Use ima_policy= instead. > > Load a policy which meets the needs of the Trusted > > Computing Base. This means IMA will measure all > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > > index f34901069e78..3034935e1eb3 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c > > @@ -304,11 +304,13 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func, > > out: > > /* > > * File signatures on some filesystems can not be properly verified. > > - * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter, > > - * fail the file signature verification. > > + * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter or > > + * for systems not willing to accept the risk, fail the file signature > > + * verification. > > */ > > - if (inode->i_sb->s_iflags & > > - (SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE | SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER)) { > > + if ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) && > > + ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) || > > + (iint->flags & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) { > > status = INTEGRITY_FAIL; > > cause = "unverifiable-signature"; > > integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename, > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > index f550f25294a3..5d122daf5c8a 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > @@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred, > > */ > > if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags) || > > ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) && > > - !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER))) { > > + !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) && > > + !(action & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) { > > iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK; > > iint->measured_pcrs = 0; > > } > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > > index e3da29af2c16..ead3f7fe6998 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ __setup("ima_tcb", default_measure_policy_setup); > > > > static bool ima_use_appraise_tcb __initdata; > > static bool ima_use_secure_boot __initdata; > > +static bool ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs __ro_after_init; > > static int __init policy_setup(char *str) > > { > > char *p; > > @@ -201,6 +202,8 @@ static int __init policy_setup(char *str) > > ima_use_appraise_tcb = true; > > else if (strcmp(p, "secure_boot") == 0) > > ima_use_secure_boot = true; > > + else if (strcmp(p, "unverifiable_sigs") == 0) > > + ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs = true; > > } > > > > return 1; > > @@ -390,6 +393,8 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid, > > if (entry->action & IMA_APPRAISE) { > > action |= get_subaction(entry, func); > > action ^= IMA_HASH; > > + if (ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs) > > + action |= IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS; > > } > > > > if (entry->action & IMA_DO_MASK) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h > > index 843ae23ba0ac..8224880935e0 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h > > +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ > > #define IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO 0x02000000 > > #define IMA_NEW_FILE 0x04000000 > > #define EVM_IMMUTABLE_DIGSIG 0x08000000 > > +#define IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS 0x10000000 > > > > #define IMA_DO_MASK (IMA_MEASURE | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_AUDIT | \ > > IMA_HASH | IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK) > > -- > > 2.7.5 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:35 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > > This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in > > > environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the > > > signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for > > > example using a pre-built kernel. > > > > > > This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can > > > > How about recalc_unverifiable_sigs? > > Cute, I really like that name, but in this case we're failing the > signature verification. > > > It's long, but unverifiable_sigs > > is not clear about whether the intent is to accept or recalculate them. > > > > (or fail_unverifiable_sigs like the flag) > > Could we abbreviate it to "fail_usigs"? Or perhaps allow both > "fail_unverifiable_sigs" and "fail_usigs". That sounds good. Or fail_unverified? But so long as 'fail' is somehow clearly implied by the name. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 09:30 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:35 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > > > This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in > > > > environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the > > > > signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for > > > > example using a pre-built kernel. > > > > > > > > This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can > > > > > > How about recalc_unverifiable_sigs? > > > > Cute, I really like that name, but in this case we're failing the > > signature verification. > > > > > It's long, but unverifiable_sigs > > > is not clear about whether the intent is to accept or recalculate them. > > > > > > (or fail_unverifiable_sigs like the flag) > > > > Could we abbreviate it to "fail_usigs"? Or perhaps allow both > > "fail_unverifiable_sigs" and "fail_usigs". > > That sounds good. Or fail_unverified? But so long as 'fail' is somehow > clearly implied by the name. None of these names mean anything to anyone but us. How about "fail_safe"? That at least has some meaning to some people. Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt index 1d1d53f85ddd..c655cd8dbaa0 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt @@ -1525,7 +1525,8 @@ ima_policy= [IMA] The builtin policies to load during IMA setup. - Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot" + Format: "tcb | appraise_tcb | secure_boot | + unverifiable_sigs" The "tcb" policy measures all programs exec'd, files mmap'd for exec, and all files opened with the read @@ -1540,6 +1541,11 @@ of files (eg. kexec kernel image, kernel modules, firmware, policy, etc) based on file signatures. + The "unverifiable_sigs" policy forces file signature + verification failure on privileged mounted + filesystems with the SB_I_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE + flag. + ima_tcb [IMA] Deprecated. Use ima_policy= instead. Load a policy which meets the needs of the Trusted Computing Base. This means IMA will measure all diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c index f34901069e78..3034935e1eb3 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c @@ -304,11 +304,13 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func, out: /* * File signatures on some filesystems can not be properly verified. - * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter, - * fail the file signature verification. + * On these filesytems, that are mounted by an untrusted mounter or + * for systems not willing to accept the risk, fail the file signature + * verification. */ - if (inode->i_sb->s_iflags & - (SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE | SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER)) { + if ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) && + ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) || + (iint->flags & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) { status = INTEGRITY_FAIL; cause = "unverifiable-signature"; integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename, diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c index f550f25294a3..5d122daf5c8a 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c @@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred, */ if (test_and_clear_bit(IMA_CHANGE_XATTR, &iint->atomic_flags) || ((inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_IMA_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGNATURE) && - !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER))) { + !(inode->i_sb->s_iflags & SB_I_UNTRUSTED_MOUNTER) && + !(action & IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS))) { iint->flags &= ~IMA_DONE_MASK; iint->measured_pcrs = 0; } diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index e3da29af2c16..ead3f7fe6998 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ __setup("ima_tcb", default_measure_policy_setup); static bool ima_use_appraise_tcb __initdata; static bool ima_use_secure_boot __initdata; +static bool ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs __ro_after_init; static int __init policy_setup(char *str) { char *p; @@ -201,6 +202,8 @@ static int __init policy_setup(char *str) ima_use_appraise_tcb = true; else if (strcmp(p, "secure_boot") == 0) ima_use_secure_boot = true; + else if (strcmp(p, "unverifiable_sigs") == 0) + ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs = true; } return 1; @@ -390,6 +393,8 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid, if (entry->action & IMA_APPRAISE) { action |= get_subaction(entry, func); action ^= IMA_HASH; + if (ima_fail_unverifiable_sigs) + action |= IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS; } if (entry->action & IMA_DO_MASK) diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h index 843ae23ba0ac..8224880935e0 100644 --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ #define IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO 0x02000000 #define IMA_NEW_FILE 0x04000000 #define EVM_IMMUTABLE_DIGSIG 0x08000000 +#define IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS 0x10000000 #define IMA_DO_MASK (IMA_MEASURE | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_AUDIT | \ IMA_HASH | IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK)
This patch addresses the fuse privileged mounted filesystems in environments which are unwilling to accept the risk of trusting the signature verification and want to always fail safe, but are for example using a pre-built kernel. This patch defines a new builtin policy "unverifiable_sigs", which can be specified on the boot command line as an argument to "ima_policy=". Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com> Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> Cc: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io> Cc: Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> Changelog v2: - address the fail safe environement --- Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 8 +++++++- security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 10 ++++++---- security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 3 ++- security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 5 +++++ security/integrity/integrity.h | 1 + 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)