From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363E7C3A5A5 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD592080C for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389434AbfIEMcL (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:32:11 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:28370 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732410AbfIEMcJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:32:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x85CUxp6072330; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:31:51 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uu23511x9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 05 Sep 2019 08:31:50 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x85CVL6n002239; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:31:49 GMT Received: from b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.15]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2uqgh79bj1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 05 Sep 2019 12:31:49 +0000 Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.234]) by b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x85CVl8C46989710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:31:47 GMT Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBE26A054; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:31:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11B36A04D; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:31:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from swastik.ibm.com (unknown [9.80.196.15]) by b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:31:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] powerpc: Add support to initialize ima policy rules To: Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Paul Mackerras , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ard Biesheuvel , Jeremy Kerr , Matthew Garret , Mimi Zohar , Claudio Carvalho , Elaine Palmer , George Wilson , Eric Ricther References: <1566218108-12705-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <1566218108-12705-3-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <87sgpesynl.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> From: Nayna Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:31:45 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87sgpesynl.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-05_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909050122 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/02/2019 07:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Hi Nayna, Hi Michael, > > Some more comments below. > > Nayna Jain writes: >> POWER secure boot relies on the kernel IMA security subsystem to >> perform the OS kernel image signature verification. > Again this is just a design choice we've made, it's not specified > anywhere or anything like that. And it only applies to bare metal secure > boot, at least so far. AIUI. Yes. I will make it consistent to use "PowerNV". >> Since each secure >> boot mode has different IMA policy requirements, dynamic definition of >> the policy rules based on the runtime secure boot mode of the system is >> required. On systems that support secure boot, but have it disabled, >> only measurement policy rules of the kernel image and modules are >> defined. > It's probably worth mentioning that we intend to use this in our > Linux-based boot loader, which uses kexec, and that's one of the reasons > why we're particularly interested in defining the rules for kexec? Yes. Agreed. I will update patch description to add this. > >> This patch defines the arch-specific implementation to retrieve the >> secure boot mode of the system and accordingly configures the IMA policy >> rules. >> >> This patch provides arch-specific IMA policies if PPC_SECURE_BOOT >> config is enabled. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain >> --- >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 ++ >> arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile | 2 +- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/ima.h | 3 +- >> 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> index c902a39124dc..42109682b727 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> @@ -917,6 +917,8 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT >> bool >> default n >> depends on PPC64 >> + depends on IMA >> + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY >> help >> Linux on POWER with firmware secure boot enabled needs to define >> security policies to extend secure boot to the OS.This config >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile >> index d310ebb4e526..520b1c814197 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile >> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ endif >> obj-$(CONFIG_EPAPR_PARAVIRT) += epapr_paravirt.o epapr_hcalls.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_GUEST) += kvm.o kvm_emul.o >> >> -obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_SECURE_BOOT) += secboot.o >> +obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_SECURE_BOOT) += secboot.o ima_arch.o >> >> # Disable GCOV, KCOV & sanitizers in odd or sensitive code >> GCOV_PROFILE_prom_init.o := n >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..ac90fac83338 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ima_arch.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +/* >> + * Copyright (C) 2019 IBM Corporation >> + * Author: Nayna Jain >> + * >> + * ima_arch.c >> + * - initialize ima policies for PowerPC Secure Boot >> + */ >> + >> +#include >> +#include >> + >> +bool arch_ima_get_secureboot(void) >> +{ >> + return get_powerpc_secureboot(); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * File signature verification is not needed, include only measurements >> + */ >> +static const char *const default_arch_rules[] = { >> + "measure func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK", >> + "measure func=MODULE_CHECK", >> + NULL >> +}; > The rules above seem fairly self explanatory. > >> + >> +/* Both file signature verification and measurements are needed */ >> +static const char *const sb_arch_rules[] = { >> + "measure func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK template=ima-modsig", >> + "appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig", >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG) >> + "measure func=MODULE_CHECK", >> +#else >> + "measure func=MODULE_CHECK template=ima-modsig", >> + "appraise func=MODULE_CHECK appraise_type=imasig|modsig", >> +#endif > But these ones are not so obvious, at least to me who knows very little > about IMA. > > Can you add a one line comment to each of the ones in here saying what > it does and why we want it? Sure. > >> + NULL >> +}; >> + >> +/* >> + * On PowerPC, file measurements are to be added to the IMA measurement list >> + * irrespective of the secure boot state of the system. > Why? Just because we think it's useful? Would be good to provide some > further justification. Sure. I will clarify this in the next version. Thanks & Regards,         - Nayna