On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:04:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:58???PM Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > As is typical with LSMs, IPE uses securityfs as its interface with
> > userspace. for a complete list of the interfaces and the respective
> > inputs/outputs, please see the documentation under
> > admin-guide/LSM/ipe.rst
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...
>
> > ---
> > security/ipe/Makefile | 2 +
> > security/ipe/fs.c | 101 +++++++++
> > security/ipe/fs.h | 17 ++
> > security/ipe/ipe.c | 3 +
> > security/ipe/ipe.h | 2 +
> > security/ipe/policy.c | 135 ++++++++++++
> > security/ipe/policy.h | 7 +
> > security/ipe/policy_fs.c | 459 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 8 files changed, 726 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.c
> > create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.h
> > create mode 100644 security/ipe/policy_fs.c
>
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/security/ipe/policy.c b/security/ipe/policy.c
> > index 772d876b1087..a5e9c6e5691b 100644
> > --- a/security/ipe/policy.c
> > +++ b/security/ipe/policy.c
> > @@ -4,12 +4,39 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include "ipe.h"
> > +#include "eval.h"
> > +#include "fs.h"
> > #include "policy.h"
> > #include "policy_parser.h"
> > #include "digest.h"
> >
> > #include <linux/verification.h>
> >
> > +/* lock for synchronizing writers across ipe policy */
> > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ipe_policy_lock);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * ver_to_u64 - Convert an internal ipe_policy_version to a u64.
> > + * @p: Policy to extract the version from.
> > + *
> > + * Bits (LSB is index 0):
> > + * [48,32] -> Major
> > + * [32,16] -> Minor
> > + * [16, 0] -> Revision
> > + *
> > + * Return: u64 version of the embedded version structure.
> > + */
> > +static inline u64 ver_to_u64(const struct ipe_policy *const p)
> > +{
> > + u64 r = 0;
>
> No need to set @r to 0 since you set it to the version immediately below.
>
Yes this is redundant, I will remove it.
> > + r = (((u64)p->parsed->version.major) << 32)
> > + | (((u64)p->parsed->version.minor) << 16)
> > + | ((u64)(p->parsed->version.rev));
> > +
> > + return r;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * ipe_free_policy - Deallocate a given IPE policy.
> > * @p: Supplies the policy to free.
> > @@ -21,6 +48,7 @@ void ipe_free_policy(struct ipe_policy *p)
> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(p))
> > return;
> >
> > + ipe_del_policyfs_node(p);
> > free_parsed_policy(p->parsed);
> > if (!p->pkcs7)
> > kfree(p->text);
> > @@ -39,6 +67,70 @@ static int set_pkcs7_data(void *ctx, const void *data, size_t len,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * ipe_update_policy - parse a new policy and replace @old with it.
> > + * @addr: Supplies a pointer to the i_private for saving policy.
> > + * @text: Supplies a pointer to the plain text policy.
> > + * @textlen: Supplies the length of @text.
> > + * @pkcs7: Supplies a pointer to a buffer containing a pkcs7 message.
> > + * @pkcs7len: Supplies the length of @pkcs7len.
> > + *
> > + * @text/@textlen is mutually exclusive with @pkcs7/@pkcs7len - see
> > + * ipe_new_policy.
> > + *
> > + * Return:
> > + * * !IS_ERR - OK
> > + * * -ENOENT - Policy doesn't exist
> > + * * -EINVAL - New policy is invalid
> > + */
> > +struct ipe_policy *ipe_update_policy(struct ipe_policy __rcu **addr,
> > + const char *text, size_t textlen,
> > + const char *pkcs7, size_t pkcs7len)
> > +{
> > + int rc = 0;
> > + struct ipe_policy *old, *new;
> > +
> > + old = ipe_get_policy_rcu(*addr);
> > + if (!old) {
> > + rc = -ENOENT;
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + new = ipe_new_policy(text, textlen, pkcs7, pkcs7len);
> > + if (IS_ERR(new)) {
> > + rc = PTR_ERR(new);
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(new->parsed->name, old->parsed->name)) {
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ver_to_u64(old) > ver_to_u64(new)) {
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ipe_is_policy_active(old)) {
>
> I don't understand the is-active check, you want to make @new the new
> active policy regardless, right? Could this is-active check ever be
> false?
>
Actually this is needed. Policy updates can be applied to any deployed
policy, which may be saved in two places: the securityfs file node
and the ipe_active_policy pointer. To update a policy, this function first
checks if the policy saved in the securityfs file node is currently active.
If so, it updates the ipe_active_policy pointer to point to the new policy,
and finally updates the policy pointer in the securityfs to the new policy.
-Fan
> > + spin_lock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(ipe_active_policy, new);
> > + spin_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> > + synchronize_rcu();
> > + }
> > +
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(*addr, new);
> > +
> > + swap(new->policyfs, old->policyfs);
> > + ipe_free_policy(old);
> > +
> > + goto out;
> > +err:
> > + ipe_free_policy(new);
> > +out:
> > + return (rc < 0) ? ERR_PTR(rc) : new;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * ipe_new_policy - Allocate and parse an ipe_policy structure.
> > *
> > @@ -117,3 +209,46 @@ struct ipe_policy *ipe_get_policy_rcu(struct ipe_policy __rcu *p)
> >
> > return rv;
> > }
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * ipe_set_active_pol - Make @p the active policy.
> > + * @p: Supplies a pointer to the policy to make active.
> > + */
> > +int ipe_set_active_pol(const struct ipe_policy *p)
> > +{
> > + int rc = 0;
> > + struct ipe_policy *ap = NULL;
> > +
> > + ap = ipe_get_policy_rcu(ipe_active_policy);
> > + if (ap && ver_to_u64(ap) > ver_to_u64(p)) {
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(ipe_active_policy, p);
> > + spin_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> > + synchronize_rcu();
> > +
> > +out:
> > + return rc;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * ipe_is_policy_active - Determine wehther @p is the active policy.
> > + * @p: Supplies a pointer to the policy to check.
> > + *
> > + * Return:
> > + * * true - @p is the active policy
> > + * * false - @p is not the active policy
> > + */
> > +bool ipe_is_policy_active(const struct ipe_policy *p)
> > +{
> > + bool rv;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + rv = rcu_access_pointer(ipe_active_policy) == p;
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + return rv;
> > +}
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
