lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] IMA: Handle early boot data measurement
From
Date
On 8/25/20 11:03 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 10:55 -0700, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> On 8/25/20 10:42 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>
>>>>> Please limit the changes in this patch to renaming the functions and/or
>>>>> files. For example, adding "measure_payload_hash" should be a separate
>>>>> patch, not hidden here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback Mimi.
>>>>
>>>> I'll split this into 2 patches:
>>>>
>>>> PATCH 1: Rename files + rename CONFIG
>>>> PATCH 2: Update IMA hook to utilize early boot data measurement.
>>>
>>> I'm referring to introducing the "measure_payload_hash" flag. I assume
>>> this is to indicate whether the buffer should be hashed or not.
>>>
>>> Example 1: ima_alloc_key_entry() and ima_alloc_data_entry(0 comparison
>>>> -static struct ima_key_entry *ima_alloc_key_entry(struct key *keyring,
>>>> - const void *payload,
>>>> - size_t payload_len)
>>>> -{
>>>> +static struct ima_data_entry *ima_alloc_data_entry(const char *event_name,
>>>> + const void *payload,
>>>> + size_t payload_len,
>>>> + const char *event_data,
>>>> + enum ima_hooks func,
>>>> + bool measure_payload_hash) <====
>>>> +{
>>>
>>> Example 2:
>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c
>>> index a74095793936..65423754765f 100644
>>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c
>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c
>>> @@ -37,9 +37,10 @@ void ima_post_key_create_or_update(struct key *keyring, struct key *key,
>>> if (!payload || (payload_len == 0))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> - if (ima_should_queue_key())
>>> - queued = ima_queue_key(keyring, payload, payload_len);
>>> -
>>> + if (ima_should_queue_data())
>>> + queued = ima_queue_data(keyring->description, payload,
>>> + payload_len, keyring->description,
>>> + KEY_CHECK, false); <===
>>> if (queued)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> But in general, as much as possible function and file name changes
>>> should be done independently of other changes.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>
>> I agree - but in this case, Tushar's patch series on adding support for
>> "Critical Data" measurement has already introduced
>> "measure_payload_hash" flag. His patch updates
>> "process_buffer_measurement()" to take this new flag and measure hash of
>> the given data.
>>
>> My patches extend that to queuing the early boot requests and processing
>> them after a custom IMA policy is loaded.
>>
>> If you still think "measure_payload_hash" flag should be introduced in
>> the queuing change as a separate patch I'll split the patches further.
>> Please let me know.
>
> There's a major problem if his changes add new function arguments
> without modifying all the callers of the function. I assume the kernel
> would fail to compile properly.

Tushar's patch series does update all the existing callers of
process_buffer_measurement() to handle the new arguments. His patch
series is self contained, and builds and works fine.

>
> Changing the function parameters to include "measure_payload_hash"
> needs to be a separate patch, whether it is part of his patch set or
> yours.
>

ok - I'll split the queuing patch to include "measure_payload_hash" in a
separate patch.

thanks,
-lakshmi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-25 21:35    [W:0.054 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site