Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165769-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <e1d868f3612f2e3480e84d6489a78337a68cb748.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] ima: Fix detection of read/write violations on
 stacked filesystems
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Amir Goldstein
 <amir73il@gmail.com>, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        roberto.sassu@huawei.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2024 17:13:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegtH8z3uRcSPCQ_3kj-XoV9rUnJc5nE+CQSrCuBMajEmeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240412140122.2607743-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
	 <20240412140122.2607743-3-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAOQ4uxjDQO91cjA0sgyPStkwc_7+NxAOhyve94qUvXSM3ytk1g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <89b4fb29-5906-4b21-8b5b-6b340701ffe4@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAJfpeguctirEYECoigcAsJwpGPCX2NyfMZ8H8GHGW-0UyKfjgg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b74a9a3edc52d96a7a34d6ba327fdb2a5a79a80d.camel@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAJfpegvPwpS5_S4qrrVbeC1RovP8jeNuDCYLbdcZ_XDFgfgftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <52645fb25b424e10e68f0bde3b80906bbf8b9a37.camel@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAJfpegsHJ1JsM3SxNk5gnUM+aucqOqNm3RTrsYgePkcQYR4EEw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e052c1b5d2aa29b3a1f3a8086af4fb8a94c4d318.camel@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAJfpeguzh6VzhdnwOPf_hM4x0FbsK8hhZp=VK4kWpCYn0xeBCg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <254ee35d6534089e99f7396582572606f24ff3a2.camel@linux.ibm.com>
	 <CAJfpegtH8z3uRcSPCQ_3kj-XoV9rUnJc5nE+CQSrCuBMajEmeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 13:06 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 21:06, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-04-16 at 16:46 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 14:18, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > Originally there was a single measureent unless the filesystem was mounted with
> > > > SB_I_VERSION.  With commit a2a2c3c8580a ("ima: Use i_version only when
> > > > filesystem supports it") this changed to always re-measure the file if the
> > > > filesystem wasn't mounted with SB_I_VERSION.
> > > 
> > > Does the i_version get stored and compared only while the inode is in memory?
> > > 
> > > In that case I think it should be possible to support a version number
> > > for the overlay inode.
> > 
> > i_version was insufficient to detect a file change for overlay.  Commit
> > b836c4d29f27 ("ima: detect changes to the backing overlay") also compares the
> > i_ino and s_dev as well.  Refer to
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231025143906.133218-1-zohar@linux.ibm.com/.
> 
> Which is rather ad-hoc.
> 
> I'm talking about returning something in overlay i_version, which
> really indicates the version of the overlay file calculated from the
> i_version of the underlying files.  The only issue is making this
> i_version persistent, AFAICS.  If that's not needed than the overlayfs
> specific logic in IMA could be moved into overlayfs, where it belongs.

IMA saves the i_version in order to detect whether or not the file has changed.
between one access and another. The i_version value, itself, does not need to be
persistent but needs to be consistent.

> 
> > Here in this patch set we need to detect IMA read/write violations, based on the
> > i_readcount/i_writecount.  If an overlay file is opened for read, but the
> > backing file is already opened for write, the file measurement is
> > meaningless.  An "open-writers" violation needs to be generated; and the IMA
> > measurement list needs to be invalidated.
> 
> If there's no other way, then let's implement an API to query the
> writecount that can take overlayfs into account.  This is for the VFS
> and/or overlayfs to calculate, not for IMA.

Thanks, that will definitely simplify IMA.

Mimi