Re: [PATCH] IMA: policy can be updated zero times

[Mimi Zohar]

On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 13:47 +0200, Petko Manolov wrote:

> On 15-12-22 16:50:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 12/22/2015 04:40 PM, Petko Manolov wrote:
> > >> Thanks, Sasha.  By the time ima_update_policy() is called
> > >> >ima_release_policy() has already output the policy update status
> > >> >message.  I guess an empty policy could be considered a valid policy.
> > >> >Could you add a msg indicating that the new policy was empty?
> > > 
> > > As far as I can say we can't get to ima_update_policy() with empty 
> > > ima_temp_rules because ima_write_policy() will set valid_policy to 0 in 
> > > case 
> > > of an empty rule.  I'll double check it tomorrow, but please you do that 
> > > too.
> > 
> > This is based on an actual crash rather than code analysis.
> 
> I was able to reproduce the crash with: echo "" > 
> /sys/kernel/security/ima/policy
> 
> It turns out ima_parse_add_rule() returns 1, even though the string is empty 
> This logic may be part of "empty policy is a valid policy" or something else. 
>  
> As it is more dangerous to change the behavior at this point i assume your 
> patch 
> is the right solution for the problem.
> 
> Acked-by: Petko Manolov 
> 
> Mimi, shall we change ima_parse_add_rule's behavior in the future or it's too 
> much work?

ima_parse_add_rules() has no way of knowing if the policy as a whole is
valid.  I would define a new function in ima_policy.c to return the
number of rules being added and call it at the beginning of
ima_release_policy() before the status message.  That way the number of
rules added can be included in the status message.

For now, the function could just return have rules or no rules, instead
of the number of rules.

Mimi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [Linux-ima-devel] [PATCH] IMA: policy can be updated zero times

[Mimi Zohar]

On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 07:24 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 13:47 +0200, Petko Manolov wrote:
> 
> > On 15-12-22 16:50:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On 12/22/2015 04:40 PM, Petko Manolov wrote:
> > > >> Thanks, Sasha.  By the time ima_update_policy() is called
> > > >> >ima_release_policy() has already output the policy update status
> > > >> >message.  I guess an empty policy could be considered a valid policy.
> > > >> >Could you add a msg indicating that the new policy was empty?
> > > > 
> > > > As far as I can say we can't get to ima_update_policy() with empty 
> > > > ima_temp_rules because ima_write_policy() will set valid_policy to 0 in 
> > > > case 
> > > > of an empty rule.  I'll double check it tomorrow, but please you do 
> > > > that 
> > > > too.
> > > 
> > > This is based on an actual crash rather than code analysis.
> > 
> > I was able to reproduce the crash with: echo "" > 
> > /sys/kernel/security/ima/policy
> > 
> > It turns out ima_parse_add_rule() returns 1, even though the string is 
> > empty 
> > This logic may be part of "empty policy is a valid policy" or something 
> > else.  
> > As it is more dangerous to change the behavior at this point i assume your 
> > patch 
> > is the right solution for the problem.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Petko Manolov 
> > 
> > Mimi, shall we change ima_parse_add_rule's behavior in the future or it's 
> > too 
> > much work?
> 
> ima_parse_add_rules() has no way of knowing if the policy as a whole is
> valid.  I would define a new function in ima_policy.c to return the
> number of rules being added and call it at the beginning of
> ima_release_policy() before the status message.  That way the number of
> rules added can be included in the status message.
> 
> For now, the function could just return have rules or no rules, instead
> of the number of rules.

Sasha, could you make your fix a separate function (above
ima_update_policy) and call it from ima_release_policy()?

Thanks!

Mimi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] IMA: policy can be updated zero times

[Petko Manolov]

On December 22, 2015 9:56:28 PM GMT+02:00, Mimi Zohar 
 wrote:
>On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 08:51 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Commit "IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times" assumed that
>the
>> policy would be updated at least once.
>> 
>> If there are zero updates, the temporary list head object will get
>added
>> to the policy list, and later dereferenced as an IMA policy object,
>which
>> means that invalid memory will be accessed.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin 
>> ---
>>  security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c |3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> index ba5d2fc..9b958b8 100644
>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
>> @@ -431,6 +431,9 @@ void ima_update_policy(void)
>>  {
>>  struct list_head *first, *last, *policy;
>> 
>> +if (list_empty(_temp_rules))
>> +return;
>> +
>>  /* append current policy with the new rules */
>>  first = (_temp_rules)->next;
>>  last = (_temp_rules)->prev;
>
>Thanks, Sasha.  By the time ima_update_policy() is called
>ima_release_policy() has already output the policy update status
>message.  I guess an empty policy could be considered a valid policy.
>Could you add a msg indicating that the new policy was empty?


As far as I can say we can't get to ima_update_policy() with empty 
ima_temp_rules because ima_write_policy() will set valid_policy to 0 in case of 
an empty rule.  I'll double check it tomorrow, but please you do that too.


cheers,
Petko




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] IMA: policy can be updated zero times

[Sasha Levin]

On 12/22/2015 04:40 PM, Petko Manolov wrote:
>> Thanks, Sasha.  By the time ima_update_policy() is called
>> >ima_release_policy() has already output the policy update status
>> >message.  I guess an empty policy could be considered a valid policy.
>> >Could you add a msg indicating that the new policy was empty?
> 
> As far as I can say we can't get to ima_update_policy() with empty 
> ima_temp_rules because ima_write_policy() will set valid_policy to 0 in case 
> of an empty rule.  I'll double check it tomorrow, but please you do that too.

This is based on an actual crash rather than code analysis.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH] IMA: policy can be updated zero times

[Sasha Levin]

Commit "IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times" assumed that the
policy would be updated at least once.

If there are zero updates, the temporary list head object will get added
to the policy list, and later dereferenced as an IMA policy object, which
means that invalid memory will be accessed.

Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin 
---
 security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c |3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c 
b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index ba5d2fc..9b958b8 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -431,6 +431,9 @@ void ima_update_policy(void)
 {
struct list_head *first, *last, *policy;
 
+   if (list_empty(_temp_rules))
+   return;
+
/* append current policy with the new rules */
first = (_temp_rules)->next;
last = (_temp_rules)->prev;
-- 
1.7.10.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html