Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201121005054.3467947-1-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <20201121005054.3467947-3-kpsingh@chromium.org> <05776c185bdc61a8d210107e5937c31e2e47b936.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <CACYkzJ4VkwRV5WKe8WZjXgd1C1erXr_NtZhgKJL3ckTmS1M5VA@mail.gmail.com> <0f54c1636b390689031ac48e32b238a83777e09c.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <0f54c1636b390689031ac48e32b238a83777e09c.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:27:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ6VEKBJnJZ+CBvpF6C=Kft5A2O5f=Uu4rTMtUiRKN5S-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Update LSM selftests for bpf_ima_inode_hash
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
        Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

[...]

> > >
> > > Even if a custom policy has been loaded, potentially additional
> > > measurements unrelated to this test would be included the measurement
> > > list.  One way of limiting a rule to a specific test is by loopback
> > > mounting a file system and defining a policy rule based on the loopback
> > > mount unique uuid.
> >
> > Thanks Mimi!
> >
> > I wonder if we simply limit this to policy to /tmp and run an executable
> > from /tmp (like test_local_storage.c does).
> >
> > The only side effect would be of extra hashes being calculated on
> > binaries run from /tmp which is not too bad I guess?
>
> The builtin measurement policy (ima_policy=tcb") explicitly defines a
> rule to not measure /tmp files.  Measuring /tmp results in a lot of
> measurements.
>
> {.action = DONT_MEASURE, .fsmagic = TMPFS_MAGIC, .flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
>
> >
> > We could do the loop mount too, but I am guessing the most clean way
> > would be to shell out to mount from the test? Are there some other examples
> > of IMA we could look at?
>
> LTP loopback mounts a filesystem, since /tmp is not being measured with
> the builtin "tcb" policy.  Defining new policy rules should be limited
> to the loopback mount.  This would pave the way for defining IMA-
> appraisal signature verification policy rules, without impacting the
> running system.

+Andrii

Do you think we can split the IMA test out,
have a little shell script that does the loopback mount, gets the
FS UUID, updates the IMA policy and then runs a C program?

This would also allow "test_progs" to be independent of CONFIG_IMA.

I am guessing the structure would be something similar
to test_xdp_redirect.sh

- KP

>
> Mimi
>