On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 3:10 PM Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
...
> > > +/**
> > > + * 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.
Ah, okay. I must have forgotten, or not realized, that multiple
policies could be loaded and not active.
I guess this does make me wonder about keeping a non-active policy
loaded in the kernel, what purpose does that serve?
--
paul-moore.com
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
