LinuxLists.cc - [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs

2021-01-26 20:44:10

Subject: [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs

Integrity measurement may filter on security module information
and needs to be clear in the case of multiple active security
modules which applies. Provide a boot option ima_rules_lsm= to
allow the user to specify an active securty module to apply
filters to. If not specified, use the first registered module
that supports the audit_rule_match() LSM hook. Allow the user
to specify in the IMA policy an lsm= option to specify the
security module to use for a particular rule.

Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>
To: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 8 +++-
security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
index e35263f97fc1..a7943d40466f 100644
--- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
+++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Description:
base: [[func=] [mask=] [fsmagic=] [fsuuid=] [uid=]
[euid=] [fowner=] [fsname=]]
lsm: [[subj_user=] [subj_role=] [subj_type=]
- [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]]
+ [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=] [lsm=]]
option: [[appraise_type=]] [template=] [permit_directio]
[appraise_flag=] [keyrings=]
base:
@@ -114,6 +114,12 @@ Description:

measure subj_user=_ func=FILE_CHECK mask=MAY_READ

+ It is possible to explicitly specify which security
+ module a rule applies to using lsm=. If the security
+ modules specified is not active on the system the rule
+ will be rejected. If lsm= is not specified the first
+ security module registered on the system will be assumed.
+
Example of measure rules using alternate PCRs::

measure func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK pcr=4
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index 8002683003e6..de72b719c90c 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
void *rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]; /* LSM file metadata specific */
char *args_p; /* audit value */
int type; /* audit type */
+ int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
} lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];
char *fsname;
struct ima_rule_opt_list *keyrings; /* Measure keys added to these keyrings */
@@ -90,17 +91,15 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {

/**
* ima_lsm_isset - Is a rule set for any of the active security modules
- * @rules: The set of IMA rules to check
+ * @entry: the rule entry to examine
+ * @lsm_rule: the specific rule type in question
*
- * If a rule is set for any LSM return true, otherwise return false.
+ * If a rule is set return true, otherwise return false.
*/
-static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(void *rules[])
+static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(struct ima_rule_entry *entry, int lsm_rule)
{
- int i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < LSMBLOB_ENTRIES; i++)
- if (rules[i])
- return true;
+ if (entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules[entry->lsm[lsm_rule].which_lsm])
+ return true;
return false;
}

@@ -273,6 +272,20 @@ static int __init default_appraise_policy_setup(char *str)
}
__setup("ima_appraise_tcb", default_appraise_policy_setup);

+static int ima_rule_lsm __ro_after_init;
+
+static int __init ima_rule_lsm_init(char *str)
+{
+ ima_rule_lsm = lsm_name_to_slot(str);
+ if (ima_rule_lsm < 0) {
+ ima_rule_lsm = 0;
+ pr_err("rule lsm \"%s\" not registered", str);
+ }
+
+ return 1;
+}
+__setup("ima_rule_lsm=", ima_rule_lsm_init);
+
static struct ima_rule_opt_list *ima_alloc_rule_opt_list(const substring_t *src)
{
struct ima_rule_opt_list *opt_list;
@@ -346,7 +359,8 @@ static void ima_lsm_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)

for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
for (r = 0; r < LSMBLOB_ENTRIES; r++)
- ima_filter_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rules[r]);
+ if (entry->lsm[i].rules[r])
+ ima_filter_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rules[r]);
kfree(entry->lsm[i].args_p);
}
}
@@ -398,7 +412,7 @@ static struct ima_rule_entry *ima_lsm_copy_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
ima_filter_rule_init(nentry->lsm[i].type, Audit_equal,
nentry->lsm[i].args_p,
&nentry->lsm[i].rules[0]);
- if (!ima_lsm_isset(nentry->lsm[i].rules))
+ if (!ima_lsm_isset(nentry, i))
pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
nentry->lsm[i].args_p);
}
@@ -563,7 +577,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode,
int rc = 0;
u32 osid;

- if (!ima_lsm_isset(rule->lsm[i].rules)) {
+ if (!ima_lsm_isset(rule, i)) {
if (!rule->lsm[i].args_p)
continue;
else
@@ -925,6 +939,7 @@ enum {
Opt_uid_lt, Opt_euid_lt, Opt_fowner_lt,
Opt_appraise_type, Opt_appraise_flag,
Opt_permit_directio, Opt_pcr, Opt_template, Opt_keyrings,
+ Opt_lsm,
Opt_err
};

@@ -962,6 +977,7 @@ static const match_table_t policy_tokens = {
{Opt_pcr, "pcr=%s"},
{Opt_template, "template=%s"},
{Opt_keyrings, "keyrings=%s"},
+ {Opt_lsm, "lsm=%s"},
{Opt_err, NULL}
};

@@ -970,7 +986,7 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_rule_entry *entry,
{
int result;

- if (ima_lsm_isset(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules))
+ if (ima_lsm_isset(entry, lsm_rule))
return -EINVAL;

entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p = match_strdup(args);
@@ -981,7 +997,7 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_rule_entry *entry,
result = ima_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].type, Audit_equal,
entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p,
&entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules[0]);
- if (!ima_lsm_isset(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules)) {
+ if (!ima_lsm_isset(entry, lsm_rule)) {
pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p);

@@ -1488,6 +1504,19 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
&(template_desc->num_fields));
entry->template = template_desc;
break;
+ case Opt_lsm:
+ result = lsm_name_to_slot(args[0].from);
+ if (result == LSMBLOB_INVALID) {
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++)
+ entry->lsm[i].args_p = NULL;
+ result = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+ entry->lsm->which_lsm = result;
+ result = 0;
+ break;
case Opt_err:
ima_log_string(ab, "UNKNOWN", p);
result = -EINVAL;
@@ -1524,6 +1553,7 @@ ssize_t ima_parse_add_rule(char *rule)
struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
ssize_t result, len;
int audit_info = 0;
+ int i;

p = strsep(&rule, "\n");
len = strlen(p) + 1;
@@ -1541,6 +1571,9 @@ ssize_t ima_parse_add_rule(char *rule)

INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list);

+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++)
+ entry->lsm[i].which_lsm = ima_rule_lsm;
+
result = ima_parse_rule(p, entry);
if (result) {
ima_free_rule(entry);
@@ -1751,7 +1784,7 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
}

for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) {
- if (ima_lsm_isset(entry->lsm[i].rules)) {
+ if (ima_lsm_isset(entry, i)) {
switch (i) {
case LSM_OBJ_USER:
seq_printf(m, pt(Opt_obj_user),
@@ -1793,6 +1826,9 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
seq_puts(m, "appraise_flag=check_blacklist ");
if (entry->flags & IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO)
seq_puts(m, "permit_directio ");
+ if (entry->lsm->which_lsm >= 0)
+ seq_printf(m, pt(Opt_lsm),
+ lsm_slot_to_name(entry->lsm->which_lsm));
rcu_read_unlock();
seq_puts(m, "\n");
return 0;
--
2.25.4

2021-02-14 18:25:50

by Mimi Zohar

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs

Hi Casey,

On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 08:40 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Integrity measurement may filter on security module information
> and needs to be clear in the case of multiple active security
> modules which applies. Provide a boot option ima_rules_lsm= to
> allow the user to specify an active securty module to apply
> filters to. If not specified, use the first registered module
> that supports the audit_rule_match() LSM hook. Allow the user
> to specify in the IMA policy an lsm= option to specify the
> security module to use for a particular rule.

Thanks, Casey.

(This patch description line length seems short.)

>
> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>
> To: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> ---
> Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 8 +++-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> index e35263f97fc1..a7943d40466f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Description:
> base: [[func=] [mask=] [fsmagic=] [fsuuid=] [uid=]
> [euid=] [fowner=] [fsname=]]
> lsm: [[subj_user=] [subj_role=] [subj_type=]
> - [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]]
> + [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=] [lsm=]]

"[lsm=]" either requires all LSM rules types (e.g. {subj/obj}_user,
role, type) to be exactly the same for multiple LSMs or all of the LSM
rule types are applicable to only a single LSM. Supporting multiple
LSMs with exactly the same LSM labels doesn't seem worth the effort.
Keep it simple - a single rule, containing any LSM rule types, is
applicable to a single LSM.

> option: [[appraise_type=]] [template=] [permit_directio]
> [appraise_flag=] [keyrings=]
> base:
> @@ -114,6 +114,12 @@ Description:
>
> measure subj_user=_ func=FILE_CHECK mask=MAY_READ
>
> + It is possible to explicitly specify which security
> + module a rule applies to using lsm=. If the security
> + modules specified is not active on the system the rule
> + will be rejected. If lsm= is not specified the first
> + security module registered on the system will be assumed.
> +
> Example of measure rules using alternate PCRs::
>
> measure func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK pcr=4
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 8002683003e6..de72b719c90c 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
> void *rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]; /* LSM file metadata specific */
> char *args_p; /* audit value */
> int type; /* audit type */
> + int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
> } lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];

Even if we wanted to support multiple LSMs within the same rule having
both "rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]" and "which_lsm" shouldn't be necessary.
The LSMBLOB_ENTRIES should already identify the LSM.

To support a single LSM per policy rule, "which_lsm" should be defined
outside of lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES]. This will simplify the rest of the code
(e.g. matching/freeing rules).

int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
struct {
void *rule; /* LSM file metadata specific */
char *args_p; /* audit value */
int type; /* audit type */
} lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];

> char *fsname;
> struct ima_rule_opt_list *keyrings; /* Measure keys added to these keyrings */
> @@ -90,17 +91,15 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
>
> /**
> * ima_lsm_isset - Is a rule set for any of the active security modules
> - * @rules: The set of IMA rules to check
> + * @entry: the rule entry to examine
> + * @lsm_rule: the specific rule type in question
> *
> - * If a rule is set for any LSM return true, otherwise return false.
> + * If a rule is set return true, otherwise return false.
> */
> -static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(void *rules[])
> +static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(struct ima_rule_entry *entry, int lsm_rule)
> {
> - int i;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < LSMBLOB_ENTRIES; i++)
> - if (rules[i])
> - return true;
> + if (entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules[entry->lsm[lsm_rule].which_lsm])
> + return true;

If each IMA policy rule is limited to a specific LSM, then the test
would be "entry->which_lsm".

> return false;
> }
>
> @@ -273,6 +272,20 @@ static int __init default_appraise_policy_setup(char *str)
> }
> __setup("ima_appraise_tcb", default_appraise_policy_setup);
>
> +static int ima_rule_lsm __ro_after_init;
> +
> +static int __init ima_rule_lsm_init(char *str)
> +{
> + ima_rule_lsm = lsm_name_to_slot(str);
> + if (ima_rule_lsm < 0) {
> + ima_rule_lsm = 0;
> + pr_err("rule lsm \"%s\" not registered", str);
> + }
> +
> + return 1;
> +}
> +__setup("ima_rule_lsm=", ima_rule_lsm_init);

The patch description refers to "ima_rules_lsm=". Please update one or
the other.

thanks,

Mimi

2021-02-16 15:30:31

by Casey Schaufler

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs

2021-02-23 00:15:01

by Casey Schaufler

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs

On 2/14/2021 10:21 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 08:40 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Integrity measurement may filter on security module information
>> and needs to be clear in the case of multiple active security
>> modules which applies. Provide a boot option ima_rules_lsm= to
>> allow the user to specify an active securty module to apply
>> filters to. If not specified, use the first registered module
>> that supports the audit_rule_match() LSM hook. Allow the user
>> to specify in the IMA policy an lsm= option to specify the
>> security module to use for a particular rule.
> Thanks, Casey.
>
> (This patch description line length seems short.)
>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>
>> To: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> ---
>> Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 8 +++-
>> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
>> index e35263f97fc1..a7943d40466f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Description:
>> base: [[func=] [mask=] [fsmagic=] [fsuuid=] [uid=]
>> [euid=] [fowner=] [fsname=]]
>> lsm: [[subj_user=] [subj_role=] [subj_type=]
>> - [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]]
>> + [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=] [lsm=]]
> "[lsm=]" either requires all LSM rules types (e.g. {subj/obj}_user,
> role, type) to be exactly the same for multiple LSMs or all of the LSM
> rule types are applicable to only a single LSM. Supporting multiple
> LSMs with exactly the same LSM labels doesn't seem worth the effort.
> Keep it simple - a single rule, containing any LSM rule types, is
> applicable to a single LSM.
>
>> option: [[appraise_type=]] [template=] [permit_directio]
>> [appraise_flag=] [keyrings=]
>> base:
>> @@ -114,6 +114,12 @@ Description:
>>
>> measure subj_user=_ func=FILE_CHECK mask=MAY_READ
>>
>> + It is possible to explicitly specify which security
>> + module a rule applies to using lsm=. If the security
>> + modules specified is not active on the system the rule
>> + will be rejected. If lsm= is not specified the first
>> + security module registered on the system will be assumed.
>> +
>> Example of measure rules using alternate PCRs::
>>
>> measure func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK pcr=4
>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> index 8002683003e6..de72b719c90c 100644
>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
>> void *rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]; /* LSM file metadata specific */
>> char *args_p; /* audit value */
>> int type; /* audit type */
>> + int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
>> } lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];
> Even if we wanted to support multiple LSMs within the same rule having
> both "rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]" and "which_lsm" shouldn't be necessary.
> The LSMBLOB_ENTRIES should already identify the LSM.
>
> To support a single LSM per policy rule, "which_lsm" should be defined
> outside of lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES]. This will simplify the rest of the code
> (e.g. matching/freeing rules).
>
> int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
> struct {
> void *rule; /* LSM file metadata specific */
> char *args_p; /* audit value */
> int type; /* audit type */
> } lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];
>
>
>> char *fsname;
>> struct ima_rule_opt_list *keyrings; /* Measure keys added to these keyrings */
>> @@ -90,17 +91,15 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
>>
>> /**
>> * ima_lsm_isset - Is a rule set for any of the active security modules
>> - * @rules: The set of IMA rules to check
>> + * @entry: the rule entry to examine
>> + * @lsm_rule: the specific rule type in question
>> *
>> - * If a rule is set for any LSM return true, otherwise return false.
>> + * If a rule is set return true, otherwise return false.
>> */
>> -static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(void *rules[])
>> +static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(struct ima_rule_entry *entry, int lsm_rule)
>> {
>> - int i;
>> -
>> - for (i = 0; i < LSMBLOB_ENTRIES; i++)
>> - if (rules[i])
>> - return true;
>> + if (entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules[entry->lsm[lsm_rule].which_lsm])
>> + return true;
> If each IMA policy rule is limited to a specific LSM, then the test
> would be "entry->which_lsm".
>
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -273,6 +272,20 @@ static int __init default_appraise_policy_setup(char *str)
>> }
>> __setup("ima_appraise_tcb", default_appraise_policy_setup);
>>
>> +static int ima_rule_lsm __ro_after_init;
>> +
>> +static int __init ima_rule_lsm_init(char *str)
>> +{
>> + ima_rule_lsm = lsm_name_to_slot(str);
>> + if (ima_rule_lsm < 0) {
>> + ima_rule_lsm = 0;
>> + pr_err("rule lsm \"%s\" not registered", str);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>> +__setup("ima_rule_lsm=", ima_rule_lsm_init);
> The patch description refers to "ima_rules_lsm=". Please update one or
> the other.
>
> thanks,
>
> Mimi

Would these changes match your suggestion?

security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index 9ac673472781..e80956548243 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
bool (*uid_op)(kuid_t, kuid_t); /* Handlers for operators */
bool (*fowner_op)(kuid_t, kuid_t); /* uid_eq(), uid_gt(), uid_lt() */
int pcr;
+ int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
struct {
void *rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]; /* LSM file metadata specific */
char *args_p; /* audit value */
int type; /* audit type */
- int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
} lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];
char *fsname;
struct ima_rule_opt_list *keyrings; /* Measure keys added to these keyrings */
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
*/
static inline bool ima_lsm_isset(struct ima_rule_entry *entry, int lsm_rule)
{
- if (entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules[entry->lsm[lsm_rule].which_lsm])
+ if (entry->lsm[lsm_rule].rules[entry->which_lsm])
return true;
return false;
}
@@ -272,19 +272,19 @@ static int __init default_appraise_policy_setup(char *str)
}
__setup("ima_appraise_tcb", default_appraise_policy_setup);

-static int ima_rule_lsm __ro_after_init;
+static int ima_rules_lsm __ro_after_init;

-static int __init ima_rule_lsm_init(char *str)
+static int __init ima_rules_lsm_init(char *str)
{
- ima_rule_lsm = lsm_name_to_slot(str);
- if (ima_rule_lsm < 0) {
- ima_rule_lsm = 0;
+ ima_rules_lsm = lsm_name_to_slot(str);
+ if (ima_rules_lsm < 0) {
+ ima_rules_lsm = 0;
pr_err("rule lsm \"%s\" not registered", str);
}

return 1;
}
-__setup("ima_rule_lsm=", ima_rule_lsm_init);
+__setup("ima_rules_lsm=", ima_rules_lsm_init);

static struct ima_rule_opt_list *ima_alloc_rule_opt_list(const substring_t *src)
{
@@ -1515,7 +1515,7 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
result = -EINVAL;
break;
}
- entry->lsm->which_lsm = result;
+ entry->which_lsm = result;
result = 0;
break;
case Opt_err:
@@ -1573,7 +1573,7 @@ ssize_t ima_parse_add_rule(char *rule)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list);

for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++)
- entry->lsm[i].which_lsm = ima_rule_lsm;
+ entry->which_lsm = ima_rules_lsm;

result = ima_parse_rule(p, entry);
if (result) {
@@ -1827,9 +1827,9 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
seq_puts(m, "appraise_flag=check_blacklist ");
if (entry->flags & IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO)
seq_puts(m, "permit_directio ");
- if (entry->lsm->which_lsm >= 0)
+ if (entry->which_lsm >= 0)
seq_printf(m, pt(Opt_lsm),
- lsm_slot_to_name(entry->lsm->which_lsm));
+ lsm_slot_to_name(entry->which_lsm));
rcu_read_unlock();
seq_puts(m, "\n");
return 0;

2021-02-23 01:54:32

by Mimi Zohar

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs

On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 15:45 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/14/2021 10:21 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> Would these changes match your suggestion?
>
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 9ac673472781..e80956548243 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ struct ima_rule_entry {
> bool (*uid_op)(kuid_t, kuid_t); /* Handlers for operators */
> bool (*fowner_op)(kuid_t, kuid_t); /* uid_eq(), uid_gt(), uid_lt() */
> int pcr;
> + int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
> struct {
> void *rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]; /* LSM file metadata specific */

If each IMA policy rule may only contain a single LSM specific
LSM_OBJ_{USER | ROLE | TYPE} and LSM_SUBJ_{USER | ROLE | TYPE}, then
there is no need for rules[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES]. Leave it as "*rule".

Otherwise it looks good.

Mimi

> char *args_p; /* audit value */
> int type; /* audit type */
> - int which_lsm; /* which of the rules to use */
> } lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES];
> char *fsname;
> struct ima_rule_opt_list *keyrings; /* Measure keys added to these keyrings */