lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] security: Fix IMA Kconfig for dependencies on ARM64
From
Date
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 15:12 -0600, Jiandi An wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2018 01:41 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 14:21 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 11:08 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 13:55 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 11:51 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:26:26PM -0600, Jiandi An wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TPM_CRB driver is the TPM support for ARM64.  If it
> > > > > > > is built as module, TPM chip is registered after IMA
> > > > > > > init.  tpm_pcr_read() in IMA driver would fail and
> > > > > > > display the following message even though eventually
> > > > > > > there is TPM chip on the system:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ima: No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass! (rc=-19)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fix IMA Kconfig to select TPM_CRB so TPM_CRB driver is
> > > > > > > built in kernel and initializes before IMA driver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiandi An <anjiandi@codeaurora.org>
> > > > > > >   security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 1 +
> > > > > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
> > > > > > > b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
> > > > > > > index 35ef693..6a8f677 100644
> > > > > > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
> > > > > > > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ config IMA
> > > > > > >    select CRYPTO_HASH_INFO
> > > > > > >    select TCG_TPM if HAS_IOMEM && !UML
> > > > > > >    select TCG_TIS if TCG_TPM && X86
> > > >
> > > > Well, this explains why IMA doesn't work on one of my X86
> > > > systems: it's got a non i2c infineon TPM.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + select TCG_CRB if TCG_TPM && ACPI
> > > > > > >    select TCG_IBMVTPM if TCG_TPM && PPC_PSERIES
> > > > > > >    help
> > > > > > >      The Trusted Computing Group(TCG) runtime
> > > > > > > Integrity
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This seems really weird, why are any specific TPM drivers
> > > > > > linked to IMA config, we have lots of drivers..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think I've ever seen this pattern in Kconfig
> > > > > > before?
> > > > >
> > > > > As you've seen by the current discussions, the TPM driver
> > > > > needs to be initialized prior to IMA.  Otherwise IMA goes
> > > > > into TPM-bypass mode.  That implies that the TPM must be
> > > > > builtin to the kernel, and not as a kernel module.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, that's not necessarily true:  If we don't begin
> > > > appraisal until after the initrd phase, then the initrd can
> > > > load TPM modules before IMA starts.
> > > >
> > > > This would involve a bit of code rejigging to not require a TPM
> > > > until IMA wants to write its first measurement, but it looks
> > > > doable and would get us out of having to second guess TPM
> > > > selections.
> > >
> > > The question is about measurement, not appraisal.  Although the
> > > initramfs might be measured, the initramfs can access files on
> > > the real root filesystem.  Those files need to be measured,
> > > before they are used/accessed.
> >
> > Isn't it a question of threat model?  Because the initrd is
> > measured, you know it's the one you specified and you should know
> > its security properties, so measurement doesn't really need to
> > begin until the root pivots.  At that point you pick up the boot
> > aggregate so the log now is tied to the initrd measurement.
> >  Conversely, I can't really see a threat model where you could
> > trick a correctly measured initrd into subverting IMA, especially
> > because listening network daemons aren't usually active at this
> > stage.
> >
> > I'm not saying there isn't a use case for wanting your TPM built
> > in, I'm just saying I don't think it needs to be required for
> > everyone who uses IMA.
> >
> > James
> >
>
> ima_init() first calls tpm_pcr_read() which tries to use underlying
> registered TPM chip driver and send read PCR TPM command to the TPM
> chip. If IMA driver is enabled and ima_init() happens, we see this.
>
> In security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c, init_ima() is in late_initcall.
> And it calls ima_init().
>
> late_initcall(init_ima);  /* Start IMA after the TPM is available */
>
> So as long as init_ima() is called, need to at least enable the
> TPM driver for the platform right?

Well, that's not really relevant: I said "This would involve a bit of
code rejigging to not require a TPM until IMA wants to write its first
measurement, but it looks doable"

James


> I'm just following current IMA Kconfig where it's selecting different
> underlying TPM chip drivers for various platforms respectively when
> CONFIG_IMA is set to Y because IMA driver init calls tpm_pcr_read()
> which needs to use TPM.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-07 22:16    [W:0.091 / U:12.792 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site