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;
Message-ID: <02426b1486616544230d0804de21cd9e78a0a00e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/12] evm: Ignore
 INTEGRITY_NOLABEL/INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS if conditions are safe
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        "mjg59@google.com" <mjg59@google.com>
Cc:     "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 04 May 2021 09:45:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1869963c94574fd1b026b304acdd308e@huawei.com>
References: <20210407105252.30721-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <20210407105252.30721-7-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <b8790b57e289980d4fe1133d15203ce016d2319d.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <c12f18094cc0479faa3f0f152b4964de@huawei.com>
         <33cad84d2f894ed5a05a3bd6854f73a0@huawei.com>
         <a2ca7317b672c63a40743268b641dd73661c3329.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <1869963c94574fd1b026b304acdd308e@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2021-05-04 at 13:16 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@linux.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 4:35 PM
> > On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 14:15 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > 
> > > > > >  	if (evm_status != INTEGRITY_PASS)
> > > > > >  		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_METADATA,
> > > > > d_backing_inode(dentry),
> > > > > >  				    dentry->d_name.name,
> > > > > "appraise_metadata",
> > > > > > @@ -515,7 +535,8 @@ int evm_inode_setattr(struct dentry *dentry,
> > > > struct
> > > > > iattr *attr)
> > > > > >  		return 0;
> > > > > >  	evm_status = evm_verify_current_integrity(dentry);
> > > > > >  	if ((evm_status == INTEGRITY_PASS) ||
> > > > > > -	    (evm_status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS))
> > > > > > +	    (evm_status == INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS) ||
> > > > > > +	    (evm_ignore_error_safe(evm_status)))
> > > > >
> > > > > It would also remove the INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS test duplication here.
> > > >
> > > > Ok.
> > >
> > > Actually, it does not seem a duplication. Currently, INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS
> > > is ignored also when the HMAC key is loaded.
> > 
> > The existing INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS exemption is more general and includes
> > the new case of when EVM HMAC is disabled.  The additional exemption is
> > only needed for INTEGRITY_NOLABEL, when EVM HMAC is disabled.
> 
> Unfortunately, evm_ignore_error_safe() is called by both evm_protect_xattr()
> and evm_inode_setattr(). The former requires an exemption also for
> INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS.
> 
> I would keep the function as it is. In the worst case, when the status is
> INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS in evm_inode_setattr(), the function will not
> be called.

Right, which is another reason for replacing evm_ignore_eror_safe()
with (is_)evm_hmac_disabled() and inlining the error tests.

thanks,

Mimi