Re: [PATCH v3 07/12] ima: Fail rule parsing when appraise_flag=blacklist is unsupportable
From: Tyler Hicks <hidden>
Date: 2020-07-17 18:11:38
On 2020-07-17 13:40:22, Nayna wrote:
On 7/9/20 2:19 AM, Tyler Hicks wrote:quoted
The "appraise_flag" option is only appropriate for appraise actions and its "blacklist" value is only appropriate when CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG is enabled and "appraise_flag=blacklist" is only appropriate when "appraise_type=imasig|modsig" is also present. Make this clear at policy load so that IMA policy authors don't assume that other uses of "appraise_flag=blacklist" are supported. Fixes: 273df864cf74 ("ima: Check against blacklisted hashes for files with modsig") Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <redacted> Cc: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com> --- * v3 - New patch security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index 81da02071d41..9842e2e0bc6d 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c@@ -1035,6 +1035,11 @@ static bool ima_validate_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry) return false; } + /* Ensure that combinations of flags are compatible with each other */ + if (entry->flags & IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST && + !(entry->flags & IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED)) + return false; + return true; }@@ -1371,8 +1376,14 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry) result = -EINVAL; break; case Opt_appraise_flag: + if (entry->action != APPRAISE) { + result = -EINVAL; + break; + } + ima_log_string(ab, "appraise_flag", args[0].from); - if (strstr(args[0].from, "blacklist")) + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG) && + strstr(args[0].from, "blacklist")) entry->flags |= IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST;If IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG is disabled, it will allow the following rule to load, which is not as expected. "appraise func=xxx_CHECK appraise_flag=blacklist appraise_type=imasig" Missing is the "else" condition to immediately reject the policy rule.
Thanks for the review. You're right. This change is needed:
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index 9842e2e0bc6d..cf3ddb38dfa8 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c@@ -1385,6 +1385,8 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry) if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG) && strstr(args[0].from, "blacklist")) entry->flags |= IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST; + else + result = -EINVAL; break; case Opt_permit_directio: entry->flags |= IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO;
Making this change does not conflict with any later patches in the series. Mimi, I've rebased and force pushed to my fixup branch with this change, for your comparison: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tyhicks/linux.git/log/?h=next-integrity-testing-fixup Tyler
Thanks & Regards, - Nayna