On Wed Aug 2, 2023 at 7:31 AM EEST, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 07:27:15AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed Aug 2, 2023 at 7:15 AM EEST, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > If an fsverity builtin signature is given for a file but the
> > > ".fs-verity" keyring is empty, there's no real reason to run the PKCS#7
> > > parser. Skip this to avoid the PKCS#7 attack surface when builtin
> > > signature support is configured into the kernel but is not being used.
> > >
> > > This is a hardening improvement, not a fix per se, but I've added
> > > Fixes and Cc stable to get it out to more users.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 432434c9f8e1 ("fs-verity: support builtin file signatures")
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > v2: check keyring and return early before allocating formatted digest
> > >
> > > fs/verity/signature.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/verity/signature.c b/fs/verity/signature.c
> > > index b95acae64eac6..8f474702aa249 100644
> > > --- a/fs/verity/signature.c
> > > +++ b/fs/verity/signature.c
> > > @@ -62,6 +62,21 @@ int fsverity_verify_signature(const struct fsverity_info *vi,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (fsverity_keyring->keys.nr_leaves_on_tree == 0) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * The ".fs-verity" keyring is empty, due to builtin signatures
> > > + * being supported by the kernel but not actually being used.
> > > + * In this case, verify_pkcs7_signature() would always return an
> > > + * error, usually ENOKEY. It could also be EBADMSG if the
> > > + * PKCS#7 is malformed, but that isn't very important to
> > > + * distinguish. So, just skip to ENOKEY to avoid the attack
> > > + * surface of the PKCS#7 parser, which would otherwise be
> > > + * reachable by any task able to execute FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY.
> > > + */
> > > + fsverity_err(inode, "fs-verity keyring is empty");
> > > + return -ENOKEY;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > d = kzalloc(sizeof(*d) + hash_alg->digest_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (!d)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > base-commit: 456ae5fe9b448f44ebe98b391a3bae9c75df465e
> > > --
> > > 2.41.0
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > applied
> >
> > BR, Jarkko
>
> Hi Jarkko, thanks for the review!
>
> I actually intended to take this through the fsverity tree. Is that okay?
>
> BTW, we could actually make this change to verify_pkcs7_signature() itself.
> I wasn't sure it would be appropriate for all callers, though. Any thoughts?
It is OK for me. I just wanted make sure that I don't get yelled let's
say month from now, why I haven't picked it already. That's why the
"more eager" approach :-)
I'll drop it from my master branch today.
BR, Jarkko
