[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:15:37 -0700
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ima: drop vla in ima_audit_measurement()
Hi Mimi,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:05:40PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 14:45 -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Hi Mimi,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:36:14PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 13:23 -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > >
> > > > /*
> > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > > > index 2cfb0c714967..356faae6f09c 100644
> > > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > > > @@ -288,8 +288,11 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, char *buf, loff_t size,
> > > > xattr_value, xattr_len, opened);
> > > > inode_unlock(inode);
> > > > }
> > > > - if (action & IMA_AUDIT)
> > > > - ima_audit_measurement(iint, pathname);
> > > > + if (action & IMA_AUDIT) {
> > > > + rc = ima_audit_measurement(iint, pathname);
> > > > + if (rc < 0)
> > > > + goto out_locked;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > if ((file->f_flags & O_DIRECT) && (iint->flags & IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO))
> > > > rc = 0;
> > >
> > > Only when IMA-appraisal is enforcing file data integrity should
> > > process_measurement() ever fail. Other errors can be logged/audited.
> >
> > Ok, so previously in ima_audit_measurement() when allocation failed,
> > there was nothing logged. If we just keep this behavior like below,
> > does that look good?
>
> Before the IMA locking change that were just upstreamed, there were
> problems with measuring/appraising files that were opened with the
> O_DIRECT flag. Unless the IMA policy specified permit_directio, the
> measurement/appraisal failed. With the new locking, opening files
> with the O_DIRECTIO flag shouldn't be a problem. It just needs to be
> fully tested before removing this code.
>
> On failure, the code below tests the ima_audit_measurement() result
> and skips the IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO test. Unless I'm missing something,
> I don't see the point.
It skips the IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO test because it's already going to
fail: we're in enforce mode and we got an allocation failure and so we
can't audit this access (note: there is another allocation failure in
ima_audit_measurement() which is still ignored after this patch, so
maybe ignoring failures is ok; seems like it's not, though).
I'm not sure I really understand the rest of your message though. Can
you suggest what the patch should do here? Should we just ignore all
failures as before?
Tycho
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
