RE: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] evm: Move hooks outside LSM infrastructure
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Date: 2020-05-11 14:13:59
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-integrity, lkml
From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@linux.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 7:08 PM On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 10:20 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:quoted
quoted
From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@linux.ibm.com] On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 16:47 +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:<snip>quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
the file metadata to the file data. The IMA and EVM policies really need to be in sync.It would be nice, but at the moment EVM considers also files that are not selected by the IMA policy. An example of why this is a problem is the audit service that fails to start when it tries to adjust thepermissionsquoted
quoted
quoted
of the log files. Those files don't have security.evm because they are not appraised by IMA, but EVM denies the operation.No, this is a timing issue as to whether or not the builtin policy or a custom policy has been loaded. A custom policy could exclude the log files based on LSM labels, but they are included in the builtin policy.Yes, I was referring to a custom policy. In this case, EVM will not adapt to the custom policy but still verifies all files. If access control is done exclusively by IMA at the time evm_verifyxattr() is called, we wouldn't need to add security.evm to all files.Roberto, EVM is only triggered by IMA, unless you've modified the kernel to do otherwise.
EVM would deny xattr/attr operations even if IMA is disabled in the kernel configuration. For example, evm_setxattr() returns the value from evm_protect_xattr(). IMA is not involved there.
I'm not interested in a complicated solution, just one that addresses the new EVM immutable and portable signature. It might require EVM HMAC, IMA differentiating between a new file and an existing file, or it might require writing the new EVM signature last, after all the other xattrs or metadata are updated. Please nothing that changes existing expectations.
Ok. Introducing the new status INTEGRITY_FAIL_IMMUTABLE, as I mentioned in '[PATCH] ima: Allow imasig requirement to be satisfied by EVM portable signatures' seems to have an additional benefit. We could introduce an additional exception in evm_protect_xattr(), other than INTEGRITY_NOXATTRS, as we know that xattr/attr update won't cause HMAC update. However, it won't work unless the IMA policy says that the file should be appraised when the mknod() system call is executed. Otherwise, integrity_iint_cache is not created for the file and the IMA_NEW_FILE flag is not set. Granting an exception for INTEGRITY_FAIL_IMMUTABLE solves the case where security.evm is the first xattr set. If a protected xattr is the first to be added, then we also have to handle the INTEGRITY_NOLABEL error. It should be fine to add an exception for this error if the HMAC key is not loaded. This still does not solve all problems. INTEGRITY_NOLABEL cannot be ignored if the HMAC key is loaded, which means that all files need to be protected by EVM to avoid issues like the one I described (auditd). Roberto HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063 Managing Director: Li Peng, Li Jian, Shi Yanli