Backports the following two patches to fix the issue of IMA mishandling LSM based rule during LSM policy update, causing a file to match an unexpected rule.
Some changes were made to these patches, which was stated in the commit message of corresponding patch.
GUO Zihua (1): ima: Handle -ESTALE returned by ima_filter_rule_match()
Janne Karhunen (1): ima: use the lsm policy update notifier
security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 2 + security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 8 ++ security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 153 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- 3 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
From: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com
[ Upstream commit b169424551930a9325f700f502802f4d515194e5 ]
This patch is backported to resolve the issue of IMA ignoreing LSM part of an LSM based rule. As the LSM notifier chain was an atomic notifier chain, we'll not be able to call synchronize_rcu() within our notifier handling function. Instead, we call the call_rcu() function to resolve the freeing issue. To do that, we would needs to include a rcu_head member in our rule, as well as wrap the call to ima_lsm_free_rule() into a rcu_callback_t type callback function.
Original patch message is as follows:
commit b169424551930a9325f700f502802f4d515194e5 Author: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 14 15:20:15 2019 +0300
Don't do lazy policy updates while running the rule matching, run the updates as they happen.
Depends on commit f242064c5df3 ("LSM: switch to blocking policy update notifiers")
Signed-off-by: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar zohar@linux.ibm.com
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org #4.19.y Signed-off-by: GUO Zihua guozihua@huawei.com --- security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 2 + security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 8 ++ security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- 3 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h index e2916b115b93..dc564ed9a790 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h @@ -154,6 +154,8 @@ int ima_measurements_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v); unsigned long ima_get_binary_runtime_size(void); int ima_init_template(void); void ima_init_template_list(void); +int ima_lsm_policy_change(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long event, + void *lsm_data);
/* * used to protect h_table and sha_table diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c index 2d31921fbda4..f461b3e2de00 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ int ima_appraise; int ima_hash_algo = HASH_ALGO_SHA1; static int hash_setup_done;
+static struct notifier_block ima_lsm_policy_notifier = { + .notifier_call = ima_lsm_policy_change, +}; + static int __init hash_setup(char *str) { struct ima_template_desc *template_desc = ima_template_desc_current(); @@ -553,6 +557,10 @@ static int __init init_ima(void) error = ima_init(); }
+ error = register_lsm_notifier(&ima_lsm_policy_notifier); + if (error) + pr_warn("Couldn't register LSM notifier, error %d\n", error); + if (!error) ima_update_policy_flag();
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index b2dadff3626b..086ff58f0669 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct ima_rule_entry { int type; /* audit type */ } lsm[MAX_LSM_RULES]; char *fsname; + struct rcu_head rcu; };
/* @@ -256,31 +257,119 @@ static void ima_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry) kfree(entry); }
+static void ima_lsm_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) { + kfree(entry->lsm[i].rule); + kfree(entry->lsm[i].args_p); + } + kfree(entry); +} + +static struct ima_rule_entry *ima_lsm_copy_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry) +{ + struct ima_rule_entry *nentry; + int i, result; + + nentry = kmalloc(sizeof(*nentry), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!nentry) + return NULL; + + /* + * Immutable elements are copied over as pointers and data; only + * lsm rules can change + */ + memcpy(nentry, entry, sizeof(*nentry)); + memset(nentry->lsm, 0, FIELD_SIZEOF(struct ima_rule_entry, lsm)); + + for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) { + if (!entry->lsm[i].rule) + continue; + + nentry->lsm[i].type = entry->lsm[i].type; + nentry->lsm[i].args_p = kstrdup(entry->lsm[i].args_p, + GFP_KERNEL); + if (!nentry->lsm[i].args_p) + goto out_err; + + result = security_filter_rule_init(nentry->lsm[i].type, + Audit_equal, + nentry->lsm[i].args_p, + &nentry->lsm[i].rule); + if (result == -EINVAL) + pr_warn("ima: rule for LSM '%d' is undefined\n", + entry->lsm[i].type); + } + return nentry; + +out_err: + ima_lsm_free_rule(nentry); + return NULL; +} + +void ima_lsm_free_rule_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head) +{ + struct ima_rule_entry *entry = + container_of(rcu_head, struct ima_rule_entry, rcu); + ima_lsm_free_rule(entry); +} + +static int ima_lsm_update_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry) +{ + struct ima_rule_entry *nentry; + + nentry = ima_lsm_copy_rule(entry); + if (!nentry) + return -ENOMEM; + + list_replace_rcu(&entry->list, &nentry->list); + call_rcu(&entry->rcu, ima_lsm_free_rule_rcu); + + return 0; +} + /* * The LSM policy can be reloaded, leaving the IMA LSM based rules referring * to the old, stale LSM policy. Update the IMA LSM based rules to reflect - * the reloaded LSM policy. We assume the rules still exist; and BUG_ON() if - * they don't. + * the reloaded LSM policy. */ static void ima_lsm_update_rules(void) { - struct ima_rule_entry *entry; - int result; - int i; + struct ima_rule_entry *entry, *e; + int i, result, needs_update;
- list_for_each_entry(entry, &ima_policy_rules, list) { + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, e, &ima_policy_rules, list) { + needs_update = 0; for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) { - if (!entry->lsm[i].rule) - continue; - result = security_filter_rule_init(entry->lsm[i].type, - Audit_equal, - entry->lsm[i].args_p, - &entry->lsm[i].rule); - BUG_ON(!entry->lsm[i].rule); + if (entry->lsm[i].rule) { + needs_update = 1; + break; + } + } + if (!needs_update) + continue; + + result = ima_lsm_update_rule(entry); + if (result) { + pr_err("ima: lsm rule update error %d\n", + result); + return; } } }
+int ima_lsm_policy_change(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long event, + void *lsm_data) +{ + if (event != LSM_POLICY_CHANGE) + return NOTIFY_DONE; + + ima_lsm_update_rules(); + return NOTIFY_OK; +} + /** * ima_match_rules - determine whether an inode matches the measure rule. * @rule: a pointer to a rule @@ -334,11 +423,10 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode, for (i = 0; i < MAX_LSM_RULES; i++) { int rc = 0; u32 osid; - int retried = 0;
if (!rule->lsm[i].rule) continue; -retry: + switch (i) { case LSM_OBJ_USER: case LSM_OBJ_ROLE: @@ -361,11 +449,6 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode, default: break; } - if ((rc < 0) && (!retried)) { - retried = 1; - ima_lsm_update_rules(); - goto retry; - } if (!rc) return false; }
On Tue, 2023-01-03 at 10:20 +0800, GUO Zihua wrote:
From: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com
[ Upstream commit b169424551930a9325f700f502802f4d515194e5 ]
This patch is backported to resolve the issue of IMA ignoreing LSM part of an LSM based rule. As the LSM notifier chain was an atomic notifier chain, we'll not be able to call synchronize_rcu() within our notifier handling function. Instead, we call the call_rcu() function to resolve the freeing issue. To do that, we would needs to include a rcu_head member in our rule, as well as wrap the call to ima_lsm_free_rule() into a rcu_callback_t type callback function.
Original patch message is as follows:
commit b169424551930a9325f700f502802f4d515194e5 Author: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 14 15:20:15 2019 +0300
Don't do lazy policy updates while running the rule matching, run the updates as they happen.
Depends on commit f242064c5df3 ("LSM: switch to blocking policy update notifiers")
Signed-off-by: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar zohar@linux.ibm.com
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org #4.19.y Signed-off-by: GUO Zihua guozihua@huawei.com
There was quite a bit of discussion regarding converting the atomic notifier to blocking, but this backport doesn't make that change.
Refer to https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAHC9VhS=GsEVUmxtiV64o8G6i2nJpkzxzpy...
Mimi
On 2023/1/4 2:50, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Tue, 2023-01-03 at 10:20 +0800, GUO Zihua wrote:
From: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com
[ Upstream commit b169424551930a9325f700f502802f4d515194e5 ]
This patch is backported to resolve the issue of IMA ignoreing LSM part of an LSM based rule. As the LSM notifier chain was an atomic notifier chain, we'll not be able to call synchronize_rcu() within our notifier handling function. Instead, we call the call_rcu() function to resolve the freeing issue. To do that, we would needs to include a rcu_head member in our rule, as well as wrap the call to ima_lsm_free_rule() into a rcu_callback_t type callback function.
Original patch message is as follows:
commit b169424551930a9325f700f502802f4d515194e5 Author: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 14 15:20:15 2019 +0300
Don't do lazy policy updates while running the rule matching, run the updates as they happen.
Depends on commit f242064c5df3 ("LSM: switch to blocking policy update notifiers")
Signed-off-by: Janne Karhunen janne.karhunen@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar zohar@linux.ibm.com
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org #4.19.y Signed-off-by: GUO Zihua guozihua@huawei.com
There was quite a bit of discussion regarding converting the atomic notifier to blocking, but this backport doesn't make that change.
Refer to https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAHC9VhS=GsEVUmxtiV64o8G6i2nJpkzxzpy...
Well it seems that the bug mentioned here is still valid on 4.19.y. Which is worrying. I'll try backporting the blocking notifier change as well.
Mimi
[ Upstream commit c7423dbdbc9ecef7fff5239d144cad4b9887f4de ]
IMA relies on the blocking LSM policy notifier callback to update the LSM based IMA policy rules.
When SELinux update its policies, IMA would be notified and starts updating all its lsm rules one-by-one. During this time, -ESTALE would be returned by ima_filter_rule_match() if it is called with a LSM rule that has not yet been updated. In ima_match_rules(), -ESTALE is not handled, and the LSM rule is considered a match, causing extra files to be measured by IMA.
Fix it by re-initializing a temporary rule if -ESTALE is returned by ima_filter_rule_match(). The origin rule in the rule list would be updated by the LSM policy notifier callback.
Fixes: b16942455193 ("ima: use the lsm policy update notifier") Signed-off-by: GUO Zihua guozihua@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar zohar@linux.ibm.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19.y Signed-off-by: GUO Zihua guozihua@huawei.com --- security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index 086ff58f0669..4ed98eaf6cb8 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c @@ -386,6 +386,9 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode, enum ima_hooks func, int mask) { int i; + bool result = false; + struct ima_rule_entry *lsm_rule = rule; + bool rule_reinitialized = false;
if ((rule->flags & IMA_FUNC) && (rule->func != func && func != POST_SETATTR)) @@ -424,35 +427,50 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, struct inode *inode, int rc = 0; u32 osid;
- if (!rule->lsm[i].rule) + if (!lsm_rule->lsm[i].rule) continue;
+retry: switch (i) { case LSM_OBJ_USER: case LSM_OBJ_ROLE: case LSM_OBJ_TYPE: security_inode_getsecid(inode, &osid); rc = security_filter_rule_match(osid, - rule->lsm[i].type, + lsm_rule->lsm[i].type, Audit_equal, - rule->lsm[i].rule, + lsm_rule->lsm[i].rule, NULL); break; case LSM_SUBJ_USER: case LSM_SUBJ_ROLE: case LSM_SUBJ_TYPE: rc = security_filter_rule_match(secid, - rule->lsm[i].type, + lsm_rule->lsm[i].type, Audit_equal, - rule->lsm[i].rule, + lsm_rule->lsm[i].rule, NULL); default: break; } - if (!rc) - return false; + if (rc == -ESTALE && !rule_reinitialized) { + lsm_rule = ima_lsm_copy_rule(rule); + if (lsm_rule) { + rule_reinitialized = true; + goto retry; + } + } + if (!rc) { + result = false; + goto out; + } } - return true; + result = true; + +out: + if (rule_reinitialized) + ima_lsm_free_rule(lsm_rule); + return result; }
/*
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org