Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231208172308.2876481-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
 <CAOQ4uxivpZ+u0A5kE962XST37-ey2Tv9EtddnZQhk3ohRkcQTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231208-tauziehen-zerfetzt-026e7ee800a0@brauner> <c95b24f27021052209ec6911d2b7e7b20e410f43.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZXcsdf6BzszwZc9h@do-x1extreme> <6e05677355d6d134dddd11da56709b424b631079.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZXdDvgbjSNo78zM2@do-x1extreme>
In-Reply-To: <ZXdDvgbjSNo78zM2@do-x1extreme>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:24:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhquVynV-=f54a7m-Bu2+dQcYxsUo1j2RBqUxCsLARCXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] overlayfs: Redirect xattr ops on security.evm to security.evm_overlayfs
To:     Seth Forshee <sforshee@kernel.org>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, miklos@szeredi.hu,
        linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        zohar@linux.ibm.com, paul@paul-moore.com, stefanb@linux.ibm.com,
        jlayton@kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 7:15=E2=80=AFPM Seth Forshee <sforshee@kernel.org> =
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 04:41:46PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-12-11 at 09:36 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:56:06PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > Ok, I will try.
> > > >
> > > > I explain first how EVM works in general, and then why EVM does not
> > > > work with overlayfs.
> > > >
> > > > EVM gets called before there is a set/removexattr operation, and af=
ter,
> > > > if that operation is successful. Before the set/removexattr operati=
on
> > > > EVM calculates the HMAC on current inode metadata (i_ino, i_generat=
ion,
> > > > i_uid, i_gid, i_mode, POSIX ACLs, protected xattrs). Finally, it
> > > > compares the calculated HMAC with the one in security.evm.
> > > >
> > > > If the verification and the set/removexattr operation are successfu=
l,
> > > > EVM calculates again the HMAC (in the post hooks) based on the upda=
ted
> > > > inode metadata, and sets security.evm with the new HMAC.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is the combination of: overlayfs inodes have different
> > > > metadata than the lower/upper inodes; overlayfs calls the VFS to
> > > > set/remove xattrs.
> > >
> > > I don't know all of the inner workings of overlayfs in detail, but is=
 it
> > > not true that whatever metadata an overlayfs mount presents for a giv=
en
> > > inode is stored in the lower and/or upper filesystem inodes? If the
> > > metadata for those inodes is verified with EVM, why is it also necess=
ary
> > > to verify the metadata at the overlayfs level? If some overlayfs
> > > metadata is currently omitted from the checks on the lower/upper inod=
es,
> > > is there any reason EVM couldn't start including that its checksums?
> >
> > Currently, the metadata where there is a misalignment are:
> > i_generation, s_uuid, (i_ino?). Maybe there is more?
> >
> > If metadata are aligned, there is no need to store two separate HMACs.
>
> I can only think of three possible sources for the metadata overlayfs
> presents:
>
>  1. It comes directly from the underlying filesystems
>  2. overlayfs synthesizes if from the underlying filesystem data
>  3. It's purely generated at runtime
>
> Are there others?

3.b. purely generated and persisted in overlay private xattr

but IIRC only s_uuid fits in that category

>
> 1 and 2 should be covered by EVM on the underlying filesystems. If 3 is
> happening then it seems like hashing that data is just confirming that
> overlayfs consistently generates the same values for that data, and
> verifying code behavior doesn't seem in-scope for EVM.

I agree.
I don't think that IMA/EVM has a reason to assets overlayfs specific
metadata.

Thanks,
Amir.