diff mbox

[3/4] ima: Improvements in ima_appraise_measurement()

Message ID 874llhoz89.fsf@morokweng.localdomain (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Thiago Jung Bauermann March 15, 2018, 8:33 p.m. UTC
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 21:03 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> Hello Serge,
>> 
>> Thanks for quickly reviewing these patches!
>> 
>> Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Quoting Thiago Jung Bauermann (bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
>> >> From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> @@ -241,16 +241,20 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>> >>  	}
>> >>  
>> >>  	status = evm_verifyxattr(dentry, XATTR_NAME_IMA, xattr_value, rc, iint);
>> >> -	if ((status != INTEGRITY_PASS) &&
>> >> -	    (status != INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE) &&
>> >> -	    (status != INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN)) {
>> >> -		if ((status == INTEGRITY_NOLABEL)
>> >> -		    || (status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS))
>> >> -			cause = "missing-HMAC";
>> >> -		else if (status == INTEGRITY_FAIL)
>> >> -			cause = "invalid-HMAC";
>> >> +	switch (status) {
>> >> +	case INTEGRITY_PASS:
>> >> +	case INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE:
>> >> +	case INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN:
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it be more future-proof to replace this with a 'default', or
>> > to at least add a "default: BUG()" to catch new status values?
>> 
>> I agree. I like the "default: BUG()" option.
>
> Agreed. I would put it at the end after INTEGRITY_FAIL.

Ok, what about the version below?

>> 
>> >> +		break;
>> >> +	case INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS:	/* No EVM protected xattrs. */
>> >> +	case INTEGRITY_NOLABEL:		/* No security.evm xattr. */
>> >> +		cause = "missing-HMAC";
>> >> +		goto out;
>> >> +	case INTEGRITY_FAIL:		/* Invalid HMAC/signature. */
>> >> +		cause = "invalid-HMAC";
>> >>  		goto out;
>> >>  	}
>> >> +
>> >>  	switch (xattr_value->type) {
>> >>  	case IMA_XATTR_DIGEST_NG:
>> >>  		/* first byte contains algorithm id */
>> >> @@ -316,17 +320,20 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>> >>  		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
>> >>  				    op, cause, rc, 0);
>> >>  	} else if (status != INTEGRITY_PASS) {
>> >> +		/* Fix mode, but don't replace file signatures. */
>> >>  		if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIX) &&
>> >>  		    (!xattr_value ||
>> >>  		     xattr_value->type != EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG)) {
>> >>  			if (!ima_fix_xattr(dentry, iint))
>> >>  				status = INTEGRITY_PASS;
>> >> -		} else if ((inode->i_size == 0) &&
>> >> -			   (iint->flags & IMA_NEW_FILE) &&
>> >> -			   (xattr_value &&
>> >> -			    xattr_value->type == EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG)) {
>> >> +		}
>> >> +
>> >> +		/* Permit new files with file signatures, but without data. */
>> >> +		if (inode->i_size == 0 && iint->flags & IMA_NEW_FILE &&
>> >
>> > This may be correct, but it's not identical to what you're replacing.
>> > Since in either case you're setting status to INTEGRITY_PASS the final
>> > result is the same, but with a few extra possible steps.  Not sure
>> > whether that matters.
>> 
>> Good point. I'll have to defer this one to Mimi though.
>
> The end result is the same, but add some needed comments.

The patch is unchanged here, then.

Comments

Serge E. Hallyn March 17, 2018, 3:09 p.m. UTC | #1
Quoting Thiago Jung Bauermann (bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> 
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 21:03 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> >> Hello Serge,
> >> 
> >> Thanks for quickly reviewing these patches!
> >> 
> >> Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Quoting Thiago Jung Bauermann (bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> >> >> From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> >> @@ -241,16 +241,20 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
> >> >>  	}
> >> >>  
> >> >>  	status = evm_verifyxattr(dentry, XATTR_NAME_IMA, xattr_value, rc, iint);
> >> >> -	if ((status != INTEGRITY_PASS) &&
> >> >> -	    (status != INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE) &&
> >> >> -	    (status != INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN)) {
> >> >> -		if ((status == INTEGRITY_NOLABEL)
> >> >> -		    || (status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS))
> >> >> -			cause = "missing-HMAC";
> >> >> -		else if (status == INTEGRITY_FAIL)
> >> >> -			cause = "invalid-HMAC";
> >> >> +	switch (status) {
> >> >> +	case INTEGRITY_PASS:
> >> >> +	case INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE:
> >> >> +	case INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN:
> >> >
> >> > Wouldn't it be more future-proof to replace this with a 'default', or
> >> > to at least add a "default: BUG()" to catch new status values?
> >> 
> >> I agree. I like the "default: BUG()" option.
> >
> > Agreed. I would put it at the end after INTEGRITY_FAIL.
> 
> Ok, what about the version below?

Since the status is returned by evm, it seems like an actual BUG() is
appropriate, but ok.

Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>

> 
> >> 
> >> >> +		break;
> >> >> +	case INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS:	/* No EVM protected xattrs. */
> >> >> +	case INTEGRITY_NOLABEL:		/* No security.evm xattr. */
> >> >> +		cause = "missing-HMAC";
> >> >> +		goto out;
> >> >> +	case INTEGRITY_FAIL:		/* Invalid HMAC/signature. */
> >> >> +		cause = "invalid-HMAC";
> >> >>  		goto out;
> >> >>  	}
> >> >> +
> >> >>  	switch (xattr_value->type) {
> >> >>  	case IMA_XATTR_DIGEST_NG:
> >> >>  		/* first byte contains algorithm id */
> >> >> @@ -316,17 +320,20 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
> >> >>  		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
> >> >>  				    op, cause, rc, 0);
> >> >>  	} else if (status != INTEGRITY_PASS) {
> >> >> +		/* Fix mode, but don't replace file signatures. */
> >> >>  		if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIX) &&
> >> >>  		    (!xattr_value ||
> >> >>  		     xattr_value->type != EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG)) {
> >> >>  			if (!ima_fix_xattr(dentry, iint))
> >> >>  				status = INTEGRITY_PASS;
> >> >> -		} else if ((inode->i_size == 0) &&
> >> >> -			   (iint->flags & IMA_NEW_FILE) &&
> >> >> -			   (xattr_value &&
> >> >> -			    xattr_value->type == EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG)) {
> >> >> +		}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +		/* Permit new files with file signatures, but without data. */
> >> >> +		if (inode->i_size == 0 && iint->flags & IMA_NEW_FILE &&
> >> >
> >> > This may be correct, but it's not identical to what you're replacing.
> >> > Since in either case you're setting status to INTEGRITY_PASS the final
> >> > result is the same, but with a few extra possible steps.  Not sure
> >> > whether that matters.
> >> 
> >> Good point. I'll have to defer this one to Mimi though.
> >
> > The end result is the same, but add some needed comments.

Yes, the same, but with a few extra possible steps, impacting performance,
so I just wanted to call that out.

-serge
--
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 mbox

Patch

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
index 0c5f94b7b9c3..8bd7a0733e51 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@  int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
 			     int xattr_len, int opened)
 {
 	static const char op[] = "appraise_data";
-	char *cause = "unknown";
+	const char *cause = "unknown";
 	struct dentry *dentry = file_dentry(file);
 	struct inode *inode = d_backing_inode(dentry);
 	enum integrity_status status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
@@ -241,16 +241,22 @@  int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
 	}
 
 	status = evm_verifyxattr(dentry, XATTR_NAME_IMA, xattr_value, rc, iint);
-	if ((status != INTEGRITY_PASS) &&
-	    (status != INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE) &&
-	    (status != INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN)) {
-		if ((status == INTEGRITY_NOLABEL)
-		    || (status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS))
-			cause = "missing-HMAC";
-		else if (status == INTEGRITY_FAIL)
-			cause = "invalid-HMAC";
+	switch (status) {
+	case INTEGRITY_PASS:
+	case INTEGRITY_PASS_IMMUTABLE:
+	case INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN:
+		break;
+	case INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS:	/* No EVM protected xattrs. */
+	case INTEGRITY_NOLABEL:		/* No security.evm xattr. */
+		cause = "missing-HMAC";
+		goto out;
+	case INTEGRITY_FAIL:		/* Invalid HMAC/signature. */
+		cause = "invalid-HMAC";
 		goto out;
+	default:
+		WARN_ONCE(true, "Unexpected integrity status %d\n", status);
 	}
+
 	switch (xattr_value->type) {
 	case IMA_XATTR_DIGEST_NG:
 		/* first byte contains algorithm id */
@@ -316,17 +322,20 @@  int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
 		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
 				    op, cause, rc, 0);
 	} else if (status != INTEGRITY_PASS) {
+		/* Fix mode, but don't replace file signatures. */
 		if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_FIX) &&
 		    (!xattr_value ||
 		     xattr_value->type != EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG)) {
 			if (!ima_fix_xattr(dentry, iint))
 				status = INTEGRITY_PASS;
-		} else if ((inode->i_size == 0) &&
-			   (iint->flags & IMA_NEW_FILE) &&
-			   (xattr_value &&
-			    xattr_value->type == EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG)) {
+		}
+
+		/* Permit new files with file signatures, but without data. */
+		if (inode->i_size == 0 && iint->flags & IMA_NEW_FILE &&
+		    xattr_value && xattr_value->type == EVM_IMA_XATTR_DIGSIG) {
 			status = INTEGRITY_PASS;
 		}
+
 		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
 				    op, cause, rc, 0);
 	} else {