Hello, On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:14:16AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 21:59 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2022-01-11 at 12:37 +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > index dea74d7717c0..1cde9b6c5987 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > @@ -560,6 +560,22 @@ config KEXEC_FILE > > > config ARCH_HAS_KEXEC_PURGATORY > > > def_bool KEXEC_FILE > > > > > > +config KEXEC_SIG > > > + bool "Verify kernel signature during kexec_file_load() syscall" > > > + depends on KEXEC_FILE && MODULE_SIG_FORMAT > > > + help > > > + This option makes kernel signature verification mandatory for This is actually wrong. KEXEC_SIG makes it mandatory that any signature that is appended is valid and made by a key that is part of the platform keyiring (which is also wrong, built-in keys should be also accepted). KEXEC_SIG_FORCE or an IMA policy makes it mandatory that the signature is present. > > > + the kexec_file_load() syscall. > > > > When KEXEC_SIG is enabled on other architectures, IMA does not define a > > kexec 'appraise' policy rule. Refer to the policy rules in > > security/ima/ima_efi.c. Similarly the kexec 'appraise' policy rule in I suppose you mean security/integrity/ima/ima_efi.c I also think it's misguided because KEXEC_SIG in itself does not enforce the signature. KEXEC_SIG_FORCE does. > > arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_policy.c should not be defined. I suppose you mean arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c - see above. Thanks for taking the time to reseach and summarize the differences. > The discussion shouldn't only be about IMA vs. KEXEC_SIG kernel image > signature verification. Let's try and reframe the problem a bit. > > 1. Unify and simply the existing kexec signature verification so > verifying the KEXEC kernel image signature works irrespective of > signature type - PE, appended signature. > > solution: enable KEXEC_SIG (This patch set, with the above powerpc IMA > policy changes.) > > 2. Measure and include the kexec kernel image in a log for attestation, > if desired. > > solution: enable IMA_ARCH_POLICY > - Powerpc: requires trusted boot to be enabled. > - EFI: requires secure boot to be enabled. The IMA efi policy > doesn't differentiate between secure and trusted boot. > > 3. Carry the kexec kernel image measurement across kexec, if desired > and supported on the architecture. > > solution: enable IMA_KEXEC > > Comparison: > - Are there any differences between IMA vs. KEXEC_SIG measuring the > kexec kernel image? > > One of the main differences is "what" is included in the measurement > list differs. In both cases, the 'd-ng' field of the IMA measurement > list template (e.g. ima-ng, ima-sig, ima-modsig) is the full file hash > including the appended signature. With IMA and the 'ima-modsig' > template, an additional hash without the appended signature is defined, > as well as including the appended signature in the 'sig' field. > > Including the file hash and appended signature in the measurement list > allows an attestation server, for example, to verify the appended > signature without having to know the file hash without the signature. I don't understand this part. Isn't the hash *with* signature always included, and the distinguishing part about IMA is the hash *without* signature which is the same irrespective of signature type (PE, appended xattr) and irrespective of the keyt used for signoing? > Other differences are already included in the Kconfig KEXEC_SIG "Notes" > section. Which besides what is already described above would be blacklisting specific binaries, which is much more effective if you have hashes of binaries without signature. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
