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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] support for duplicate measurement of integrity
 critical data
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com,
        casey@schaufler-ca.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com,
        gmazyland@gmail.com, paul@paul-moore.com
Cc:     tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, sashal@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        nramas@linux.microsoft.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com
References: <20210130004519.25106-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
 <27f73411fc1d6ce6dd16a29344d729d9aa760250.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <27a4592c3b75861d2b9c8fb1511f593aa987222c.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <c5ecccbe-9e23-f297-8a79-2a9dd62a40fb@linux.microsoft.com>
 <38ba5889d517ee010a6bf370f8892059dd7d3bfe.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <6bf1d3b1-522a-4df7-b18b-3789855b5740@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:57:19 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <38ba5889d517ee010a6bf370f8892059dd7d3bfe.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2021-02-09 10:53 a.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 10:23 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 15:22 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 16:45 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>>>>> IMA does not measure duplicate buffer data since TPM extend is a very
>>>>> expensive operation.  However, in some cases for integrity critical
>>>>> data, the measurement of duplicate data is necessary to accurately
>>>>> determine the current state of the system.  Eg, SELinux state changing
>>>>> from 'audit', to 'enforcing', and back to 'audit' again.  In this
>>>>> example, currently, IMA will not measure the last state change to
>>>>> 'audit'.  This limits the ability of attestation services to accurately
>>>>> determine the current state of the integrity critical data on the
>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>> This series addresses this gap by providing the ability to measure
>>>>> duplicate entries for integrity critical data, driven by policy.
>>>>
>>>> The same reason for re-measuring buffer data is equally applicable to
>>>> files.  In both cases, the file or the buffer isn't re-measured if it
>>>> already exists in the htable.   Please don't limit this patch set to
>>>> just buffer data.
>>>
>> Agreed.  I wasn't sure if you wanted the support for files, or other
>> buffer measurement scenarios, except critical data.  So I started the
>> implementation with supporting just critical data.  Happy to extend it
>> to files and other buffer measurement scenarios as you suggested.
>>
>>> Instead of making the change on a per measurement rule basis, disabling
>>> "htable" would be the simplest way of forcing re-measurements.  All
>>> that would be needed is a new Kconfig (e.g. CONFIG_IMA_DISABLE_HTABLE)
>>> and the associated test in ima_add_template_entry().
>>>
>> Agreed.  Earlier I wasn't sure if you wanted allow_dup support for all
>> the scenarios.  Now that it is clear,  I will implement it as you
>> suggested.  Thank you so much for the pointers.  Appreciate it.
> 
> There are two different solutions - per measurement rule, disabling
> htable - being discussed.   Disabling htable requires miminumal
> changes.  Which version are you thinking of implementing?
> 
I am thinking of implementing "disabling 'htable' using a new Kconfig 
(e.g. CONFIG_IMA_DISABLE_HTABLE)".  That is, not using the var 
ima_htable or ima_lookup_digest_entry() if that CONFIG is set.
So the duplicate measurements are allowed when the CONFIG is set.
This would cover all the measurement scenarios through a single CONFIG 
setting.

I am not planning to implement it as a "per measurement rule".

Sorry it wasn't clear in my earlier response.

Thanks,
Tushar

> thanks,
> 
> Mimi
>