Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp6563736yba; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:34:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyoH0X2K6VDbRCBbvG4dvjPshg4oatNhsARbrpNYFj3HSTaca5YEllqUzyKKn3KNE4pw1RE X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8289:: with SMTP id s9mr41530139pfm.208.1557851692797; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:34:52 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557851692; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=PkZCK/0/OblSS1BS53j4jB1Xjj4AcMZRsfvchNT6klDtFaDlglFCImiD7A5NdBp1s7 M6DkUhDsDVf+Vc9JXQoQ2coRM83CNowVAS3u75ERNVQAN8ocqXuZsGcugABcwtrFW4gQ wrnsAHjLJ8BkuXZMKJ5smEaGZI7A/2h7osecbJY/hmDfT/0ZyzS/igY4Q5FM2lqVnEfd b8uYotKJ4uXaq4UCkiT7JngFSiGw2JIU0HQNMjACFg+/cE/rRqDmYtLFG9GEmJaF8q1I sUAcynzT0FRyMZDzQBeOTwsNVTRDZB0bfB0Jjnp7G5yCGVgdnL3/z95uzvLzk22t3E+8 yRdQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=K/31OC9Mvhx9EqNc/gZ8aETdEe9QSqJoPQPD5lG0Ptw=; b=sTJjGnMz/jOoMlh8jzhl2R75m3HDPhknzYYlJFsp9kHI6k+baQe/Z8q15TJkNEcu6N QockuOYiIew7K72ekAC/L56RB/fGbJGTImbeMjJJ+wikcfQznRwY9gebGojzxtlXS1TS 9ZGzpk0Jjz2mW+xkoik6qEvZn40Vj/kpMR0kdZvvCcd5fptSVmjI3GL47VFcP9VZte0c fte6ev/GEdCtSLAyv3hYm+VcmhQQE8gBj19m4C1r62D/a2T9EEVWUVMY80GJv7eLOUU0 lzNa89DgObP5PeBtO7HbplqbLMMrZ92Oy1PNhXpe3dsBJEEC6DCtNjpBo+wVUE89qWgB 5VpQ== 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 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x10si19245579plo.422.2019.05.14.09.34.37; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:34:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726464AbfENQd1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 14 May 2019 12:33:27 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:32939 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725916AbfENQd0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 May 2019 12:33:26 -0400 Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 453499C173FFC64BA28C; Tue, 14 May 2019 17:33:25 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.220.96.108] (10.220.96.108) by smtpsuk.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 14 May 2019 17:33:22 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] initramfs: add support for xattrs in the initial ram disk To: Andy Lutomirski CC: Rob Landley , Arvind Sankar , LKML , Linux API , "Linux FS Devel" , linux-integrity , References: <20190512194322.GA71658@rani.riverdale.lan> <3fe0e74b-19ca-6081-3afe-e05921b1bfe6@huawei.com> <4f522e28-29c8-5930-5d90-e0086b503613@landley.net> From: Roberto Sassu Message-ID: <9357cb32-3803-2a7e-4949-f9e4554c1ee9@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 18:33:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.220.96.108] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/14/2019 5:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:47 AM Roberto Sassu wrote: >> >> On 5/13/2019 11:07 AM, Rob Landley wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/13/19 2:49 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote: >>>> On 5/12/2019 9:43 PM, Arvind Sankar wrote: >>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 05:05:48PM +0000, Rob Landley wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/19 7:52 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 11:17 +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:24:17PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: >>>>>>>>> This proposal consists in marshaling pathnames and xattrs in a file called >>>>>>>>> .xattr-list. They are unmarshaled by the CPIO parser after all files have >>>>>>>>> been extracted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Couldn't this parsing of the .xattr-list file and the setting of the xattrs >>>>>>>> be done equivalently by the initramfs' /init? Why is kernel involvement >>>>>>>> actually required here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's too late. The /init itself should be signed and verified. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the initramfs cpio.gz image was signed and verified by the extractor, how is >>>>>> the init in it _not_ verified? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ro >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't the below work even before enforcing signatures on external >>>>> initramfs: >>>>> 1. Create an embedded initramfs with an /init that does the xattr >>>>> parsing/setting. This will be verified as part of the kernel image >>>>> signature, so no new code required. >>>>> 2. Add a config option/boot parameter to panic the kernel if an external >>>>> initramfs attempts to overwrite anything in the embedded initramfs. This >>>>> prevents overwriting the embedded /init even if the external initramfs >>>>> is unverified. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, it wouldn't work. IMA is already initialized and it would >>>> verify /init in the embedded initial ram disk. >>> >>> So you made broken infrastructure that's causing you problems. Sounds unfortunate. >> >> The idea is to be able to verify anything that is accessed, as soon as >> rootfs is available, without distinction between embedded or external >> initial ram disk. >> >> Also, requiring an embedded initramfs for xattrs would be an issue for >> systems that use it for other purposes. >> >> >>>> The only reason why >>>> opening .xattr-list works is that IMA is not yet initialized >>>> (late_initcall vs rootfs_initcall). >>> >>> Launching init before enabling ima is bad because... you didn't think of it? >> >> No, because /init can potentially compromise the integrity of the >> system. > > I think Rob is right here. If /init was statically built into the > kernel image, it has no more ability to compromise the kernel than > anything else in the kernel. What's the problem here? Right, the measurement/signature verification of the kernel image is sufficient. Now, assuming that we defer the IMA initialization until /init in the embedded initramfs has been executed, the problem is how to handle processes launched with the user mode helper or files directly read by the kernel (if it can happen before /init is executed). If IMA is not yet enabled, these operations will be performed without measurement and signature verification. Roberto -- HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063 Managing Director: Bo PENG, Jian LI, Yanli SHI