Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <a769e5b91b573691ba1c76545b2b62d1b7b48e4c.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: Calculate digest in ima_inode_hash() if not
 available
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        "shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
        "ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
        "daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "andrii@kernel.org" <andrii@kernel.org>,
        "kpsingh@kernel.org" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Cc:     "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 06:16:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <311b5d0b3b824c548a4032a76a408944@huawei.com>
References: <20220211104828.4061334-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <537635732d9cbcc42bcf7be5ed932d284b03d39f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <cc6bcb7742dc432ba990ee38b5909496@huawei.com>
         <36f85113f181f78eda3576823bd92be3f9cd1802.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <311b5d0b3b824c548a4032a76a408944@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 08:00 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > >
> > > I found that just checking that iint->ima_hash is not NULL is not enough
> > > (ima_inode_hash() might still return the old digest after a file write).
> > > Should I replace that check with !(iint->flags & IMA_COLLECTED)?
> > > Or should I do only for ima_file_hash() and recalculate the digest
> > > if necessary?
> > 
> > Updating the file hash after each write would really impact IMA
> > performance.  If you really want to detect any file change, no matter
> > how frequently it occurs, your best bet would be to track i_generation
> > and i_version.  Stefan is already adding "i_generation" for IMA
> > namespacing.
> 
> I just wanted the ability to get a fresh digest after a file opened
> for writing is closed. Since in my use case I would not use an IMA
> policy, that would not be a problem.

As I recall, the __fput() delay was to prevent locking ordering issues
- inode, iint.

-- 
thanks,

Mimi