> From: Deven Bowers [mailto:deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 9:26 PM > On 10/13/2021 12:24 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:06:31PM -0700, > deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Add security_inode_setsecurity to fsverity signature verification. > >> This can let LSMs save the signature data and digest hashes provided > >> by fsverity. > > Can you elaborate on why LSMs need this information? > > The proposed LSM (IPE) of this series will be the only one to need > this information at the moment. IPE’s goal is to have provide > trust-based access control. Trust and Integrity are tied together, > as you cannot prove trust without proving integrity. I wanted to go back on this question. It seems, at least for fsverity, that you could obtain the root digest at run-time, without storing it in a security blob. I thought I should use fsverity_get_info() but the fsverity_info structure is not exported (it is defined in fs/verity/fsverity_private.h). Then, I defined a new function, fsverity_get_file_digest() to copy the file_digest member of fsverity_info to a buffer and to pass the associated hash algorithm. With that, the code of evaluate() for DIGLIM becomes: info = fsverity_get_info(file_inode(ctx->file)); if (info) ret = fsverity_get_file_digest(info, buffer, sizeof(buffer), &algo); if (!strcmp(expect->data, "diglim") && ret > 0) { ret = diglim_digest_get_info(buffer, algo, COMPACT_FILE, &modifiers, &actions); if (!ret) return true; } Roberto HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063 Managing Director: Li Peng, Zhong Ronghua > IPE needs the digest information to be able to compare a digest > provided by the policy author, against the digest calculated by > fsverity to make a decision on whether that specific file, represented > by the digest is authorized for the actions specified in the policy. > > A more concrete example, if an IPE policy author writes: > > op=EXECUTE fsverity_digest=<HexDigest > action=DENY > > IPE takes the digest provided by this security hook, stores it > in IPE's security blob on the inode. If this file is later > executed, IPE compares the digest stored in the LSM blob, > provided by this hook, against <HexDigest> in the policy, if > it matches, it denies the access, performing a revocation > of that file. > > This brings me to your next comment: > > > The digest isn't meaningful without knowing the hash algorithm it uses. > It's available here, but you aren't passing it to this function. > > The digest is meaningful without the algorithm in this case. > IPE does not want to recalculate a digest, that’s expensive and > doesn’t provide any value. IPE, in this case, treats this as a > buffer to compare the policy-provided one above to make a > policy decision about access to the resource. > > >> Also changes the implementaion inside the hook function to let > >> multiple LSMs can add hooks. > > Please split fs/verity/ changes and security/ changes into separate patches, if > > possible. > > Sorry, will do, not a problem. > > >> @@ -177,6 +178,17 @@ struct fsverity_info *fsverity_create_info(const > struct inode *inode, > >> fsverity_err(inode, "Error %d computing file digest", err); > >> goto out; > >> } > >> + > >> + err = security_inode_setsecurity((struct inode *)inode, > > If a non-const inode is needed, please propagate that into the callers rather > > than randomly casting away the const. > > > >> + FS_VERITY_DIGEST_SEC_NAME, > >> + vi->file_digest, > >> + vi->tree_params.hash_alg- > >digest_size, > >> + 0); > >> @@ -84,7 +85,9 @@ int fsverity_verify_signature(const struct fsverity_info > *vi, > >> > >> pr_debug("Valid signature for file digest %s:%*phN\n", > >> hash_alg->name, hash_alg->digest_size, vi->file_digest); > >> - return 0; > >> + return security_inode_setsecurity((struct inode *)inode, > >> > > Likewise, please don't cast away const. > > Sorry, I should've caught these myself. I'll change > fsverity_create_info to accept the non-const inode, and > change fsverity_verify_signature to accept an additional inode > struct as the first arg instead of changing the fsverity_info > structure to have a non-const inode field. > > >> + FS_VERITY_SIGNATURE_SEC_NAME, > >> + signature, sig_size, 0); > > This is only for fs-verity built-in signatures which aren't the only way to do > > signatures with fs-verity. Are you sure this is what you're looking for? > > Could you elaborate on the other signature types that can be used > with fs-verity? I’m 99% sure this is what I’m looking for as this > is a signature validated in the kernel against the fs-verity keyring > as part of the “fsverity enable” utility. > > It's important that the signature is validated in the kernel, as > userspace is considered untrusted until the signature is validated > for this case. > > > Can you elaborate on your use case for fs-verity built-in signatures, > Sure, signatures, like digests, also provide a way to prove integrity, > and the trust component comes from the validation against the keyring, > as opposed to a fixed value in IPE’s policy. The use case for fs-verity > built-in signatures is that we have a rw ext4 filesystem that has some > executable files, and we want to have a execution policy (through IPE) > that only _trusted_ executables can run. Perf is important here, hence > fs-verity. > > > and what the LSM hook will do with them? > > At the moment, this will just signal to IPE that these fs-verity files were > enabled with a built-in signature as opposed to enabled without a signature. > In v7, it copies the signature data into IPE's LSM blob attached to the > inode. > In v8+, I'm changing this to store “true” in IPE's LSM blob instead, as > copying > the signature data is an unnecessary waste of space and point of > failure. This > has a _slightly_ different functionality then fs.verity.require_signatures, > because even if someone were to disable the require signatures option, IPE > would still know if these files were signed or not and be able to make the > access control decision based IPE's policy. > > Very concretely, this powers this kind of rule in IPE: > > op=EXECUTE fsverity_signature=TRUE action=ALLOW > > if that fsverity_signature value in IPE’s LSM blob attached to the inode is > true, then fsverity_signature in IPE’s policy will evaluate to true and > match > this rule. The inverse is also applicable. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
