Mimi Zohar <zo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 18:38 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 13:50 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:40:02 -0400 Mimi Zohar <zo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> > > The TPM PCRs are only reset on a hard reboot.  In order to validate a
>> > > TPM's quote after a soft reboot (eg. kexec -e), the IMA measurement list
>> > > of the running kernel must be saved and then restored on the subsequent
>> > > boot, possibly of a different architecture.
>> > > 
>> > > The existing securityfs binary_runtime_measurements file conveniently
>> > > provides a serialized format of the IMA measurement list. This patch
>> > > set serializes the measurement list in this format and restores it.
>> > > 
>> > > Up to now, the binary_runtime_measurements was defined as architecture
>> > > native format.  The assumption being that userspace could and would
>> > > handle any architecture conversions.  With the ability of carrying the
>> > > measurement list across kexec, possibly from one architecture to a
>> > > different one, the per boot architecture information is lost and with it
>> > > the ability of recalculating the template digest hash.  To resolve this
>> > > problem, without breaking the existing ABI, this patch set introduces
>> > > the boot command line option "ima_canonical_fmt", which is arbitrarily
>> > > defined as little endian.
>> > > 
>> > > The need for this boot command line option will be limited to the
>> > > existing version 1 format of the binary_runtime_measurements.
>> > > Subsequent formats will be defined as canonical format (eg. TPM 2.0
>> > > support for larger digests).
>> > > 
>> > > This patch set pre-req's Thiago Bauermann's "kexec_file: Add buffer
>> > > hand-over for the next kernel" patch set. 
>> > > 
>> > > These patches can also be found in the next-kexec-restore branch of:
>> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/zohar/linux-integrity.git
>> > 
>> > I'll merge these into -mm to get some linux-next exposure.  I don't
>> > know what your upstream merge plans will be?
>> 
>> Sounds good.  I'm hoping to get some review/comments on this patch set
>> as well.  At the moment, I'm chasing down a kernel test robot report
>> from this afternoon.
>
> My concern about changing the canonical format as originally defined in
> patch 9/9 from big endian to little endian never materialized.  Andreas
> Steffan, the patch author, is happy either way.
>
> We proposed two methods of addressing Eric Biederman's concerns of not
> including the IMA measurement list segment in the kexec hash as
> described in  https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/9/355.
>
> - defer calculating and verifying the serialized IMA measurement list
> buffer hash to IMA
> - calculate the kexec hash on load, verify it on the kexec execute,
> before re-calculating and updating it.

I need to ask: How this is anticipated to interact with kexec on panic?
Because honestly I can't see this ever working in that case.  The
assumption is that the original kernel has gone crazy.  So from a
practical standpoint any trusted path should have been invalided.

This entire idea of updating the kexec image makes me extremely
extremely nervious.  It feels like sticking a screw driver through the
spokes of your bicicle tires while ridding down the road.

I can see tracking to see if the list has changed at some
point and causing a reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KEXEC) to fail.

At least the common bootloader cases that I know of using kexec are very
minimal distributions that live in a ramdisk and as such it should be
very straight forward to measure what is needed at or before
sys_kexec_load.  But that was completely dismissed as unrealistic so I
don't have a clue what actual problem you are trying to solve.

If there is anyway we can start small and not with this big scary
infrastructure change I would very much prefer it.

Eric

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Reply via email to