Received: by 2002:ac0:8c9a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id r26csp5397159ima; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:03:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYFHgvnfq9eebYRQY2EEGAQqMXl9+eWg8OVlo4CO4a0fZ1xkdPt/WeTkLDzOxTu/tFFNk6C X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bd0a:: with SMTP id p10mr6425917pls.322.1549393424825; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:03:44 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549393424; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gJeJLk7o9PEabgNY9C+uFaGlUGE+n754ye4EU+DDQoBhtrkjHGwPE/UZI4RQzvSSNW ezQc9nSbn85PBkk5itTs2ZufUq05x9OWbay3VisZ812NA5GSFgtkEEPzq5HhubXJ+C75 lIORocS1u//UFP9qnr03P8SMo/IPdIND4c3I4nHmTq7AO0Mpsj5I1QniHwpCPVPEHye3 6sOvmRN+ZTihoniH+kFht8cjc2gpljjlEDLECOr/LGyot7KJfkLIvcc3PNt6RD9FOuoZ Pt70hhC+svxx5cKy2q6EznoMoAfUGhX9u2gFbesVqlESH6OBpWmRKfjJcY5NBkFiWAgq RYTA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject; bh=gilrnqNb6LXFS+BlXpKo9Rb+PMdZR/cEli0Zu/aesjg=; b=0FaP0nDJprTavyN9S3ovLMcvBvheGSV84cGnodCdUG2WAK0+OF/GoTPituTapNnMNc ClbBq4eHo3PAPK/x08rB0/g+xindchlE4Z/rEfHeLfoxMDzmzUzAMOq26fzj3tmO3cwy WVrVs90rVYM4QJ+J6L5SYVokXWL9ZefOZG6JoluTPujTar7aAQakhdX2ckFqoFYNkvR+ /kjoqteCxfk1F9KHswM4EWzEH8QT7HykkUnimnDncVBDTTW/pIU2qQ9OixHLxCxrEaXp geWBwYoQ2MS1JdnphH3mkTkteGBJOTBjAQrnhuwS8ZgkSfucM9UvdmvIzJcfHqgcGvW1 r3ig== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b26si3751387pgl.539.2019.02.05.11.03.29; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729591AbfBESwk (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:52:40 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:35678 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727524AbfBESwk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:52:40 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x15ImmWs011630 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:52:38 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qfe9ep42m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:52:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:36 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:34 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x15IqWo860883126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:33 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12E8A4053; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC710A4055; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.107.43]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:52:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules From: Mimi Zohar To: Seth Forshee Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu , Luis Chamberlain , David Howells , Justin Forbes , Matthew Garrett Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:52:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20190205183201.GA3218@ubuntu-xps13> References: <1548962339-10681-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1548962339-10681-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <20190205151859.GD16362@ubuntu-xps13> <1549385244.4146.148.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190205183201.GA3218@ubuntu-xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19020518-0008-0000-0000-000002BC7927 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19020518-0009-0000-0000-000022287CC0 Message-Id: <1549392741.4146.161.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-05_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902050143 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 12:32 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:47:24AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Hi Seth, > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 09:18 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Require signed kernel modules on systems with secure boot mode enabled. > > > > > > > > To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA > > > > signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if > > > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled. > > > > > > > > This patch defines a function named set_module_sig_required() and renames > > > > is_module_sig_enforced() to is_module_sig_enforced_or_required(). The > > > > call to set_module_sig_required() is dependent on CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > > being enabled. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar > > > > > > With respect to interactions with the kernel lockdown patches, this > > > looks better than the patches I saw previously. I don't feel like I know > > > enough about what's going on with IMA to ack the patch, but I feel > > > confident that it's at least not going to break signature enforcement > > > for us. > > > > Thank you for testing!  Could this be translated into a "tested-by" > > "(for w/lockdown patches)"? > > Yeah, that's fine. To be clear about what I tested, I've confirmed that > it doesn't interfere with requiring signed modules under lockdown with > CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=n and IMA appraisal enabled. > > Tested-by: Seth Forshee Oh!  You've disabled the coordination of the two signature verification methods.  Any chance you could test with "CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY" enabled? Mimi