lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] support for duplicate measurement of integrity critical data
From
Date
On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 10:23 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 15:22 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 16:45 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> >>> IMA does not measure duplicate buffer data since TPM extend is a very
> >>> expensive operation. However, in some cases for integrity critical
> >>> data, the measurement of duplicate data is necessary to accurately
> >>> determine the current state of the system. Eg, SELinux state changing
> >>> from 'audit', to 'enforcing', and back to 'audit' again. In this
> >>> example, currently, IMA will not measure the last state change to
> >>> 'audit'. This limits the ability of attestation services to accurately
> >>> determine the current state of the integrity critical data on the
> >>> system.
> >>>
> >>> This series addresses this gap by providing the ability to measure
> >>> duplicate entries for integrity critical data, driven by policy.
> >>
> >> The same reason for re-measuring buffer data is equally applicable to
> >> files. In both cases, the file or the buffer isn't re-measured if it
> >> already exists in the htable. Please don't limit this patch set to
> >> just buffer data.
> >
> Agreed. I wasn't sure if you wanted the support for files, or other
> buffer measurement scenarios, except critical data. So I started the
> implementation with supporting just critical data. Happy to extend it
> to files and other buffer measurement scenarios as you suggested.
>
> > Instead of making the change on a per measurement rule basis, disabling
> > "htable" would be the simplest way of forcing re-measurements. All
> > that would be needed is a new Kconfig (e.g. CONFIG_IMA_DISABLE_HTABLE)
> > and the associated test in ima_add_template_entry().
> >
> Agreed. Earlier I wasn't sure if you wanted allow_dup support for all
> the scenarios. Now that it is clear, I will implement it as you
> suggested. Thank you so much for the pointers. Appreciate it.

There are two different solutions - per measurement rule, disabling
htable - being discussed. Disabling htable requires miminumal
changes. Which version are you thinking of implementing?

thanks,

Mimi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-09 22:15    [W:0.088 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site