Re: [PATCH v3 12/19] firmware_loader: Use security_post_load_data()
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-07-27 10:57:49
Also in:
linux-efi, linux-integrity, linux-kselftest, lkml, selinux
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 14:36 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
Now that security_post_load_data() is wired up, use it instead
of the NULL file argument style of security_post_read_file(),
and update the security_kernel_load_data() call to indicate that a
security_kernel_post_load_data() call is expected.
Wire up the IMA check to match earlier logic. Perhaps a generalized
change to ima_post_load_data() might look something like this:
return process_buffer_measurement(buf, size,
kernel_load_data_id_str(load_id),
read_idmap[load_id] ?: FILE_CHECK,
0, NULL);
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>process_measurement() measures, verifies a file signature - both signatures stored as an xattr and as an appended buffer signature - and augments audit records with the file hash. (Support for measuring, augmenting audit records, and/or verifying fs-verity signatures has yet to be added.) As explained in my response to 11/19, the file descriptor provides the file pathname associated with the buffer data. In addition, IMA policy rules may be defined in terms of other file descriptor info - uid, euid, uuid, etc. Recently support was added for measuring the kexec boot command line, certificates being loaded onto a keyring, and blacklisted file hashes (limited to appended signatures). None of these buffers are signed. process_buffer_measurement() was added for this reason and as a result is limited to just measuring the buffer data. Whether process_measurement() or process_buffer_measurement() should be modified, needs to be determined. In either case to support the init_module syscall, would at minimum require the associated file pathname. Mimi