Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-14 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 11:10 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 10:42 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:51 AM, James Bottomley >> enPartnership.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 10:15 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:53 AM,

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-13 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 10:42 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:51 AM, James Bottomley > enPartnership.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 10:15 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:53 AM, James Bottomley > > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-13 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:42 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 10:21 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:42 AM, James Bottomley >> enPartnership.com> wrote: > [...] >>> For most people the security mechanism of local xattrs is >>> sufficient. If you're

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-13 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:51 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 10:15 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:53 AM, James Bottomley >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > [...] > > and what is nice to have to

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-13 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 10:21 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:42 AM, James Bottomley > enPartnership.com> wrote: [...] > > For most people the security mechanism of local xattrs is > > sufficient. If you're paranoid, you don't believe it is and you > > use EVM. > > When IMA

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-13 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:42 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 09:56 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:28 PM, James Bottomley >> nPartnership.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: Mimi's earlier point is that any

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread Deven Bowers
On 8/12/2020 7:18 AM, Chuck Lever wrote: On Aug 11, 2020, at 5:03 PM, James Morris wrote: On Sat, 8 Aug 2020, Chuck Lever wrote: My interest is in code integrity enforcement for executables stored in NFS files. My struggle with IPE is that due to its dependence on dm-verity, it does

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 10:15 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:53 AM, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: [...] > > > > > > > > and what is nice to have to speed up the verification > > > > process. The choice for the

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 09:56 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:28 PM, James Bottomley > nPartnership.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > Mimi's earlier point is that any IMA metadata format that > > > involves unsigned digests is

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:32 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:43 AM, James Bottomley >>> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 19:36 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > [...] Thanks for the help! I just want to emphasize

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 11, 2020, at 5:03 PM, James Morris wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2020, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> My interest is in code integrity enforcement for executables stored >> in NFS files. >> >> My struggle with IPE is that due to its dependence on dm-verity, it >> does not seem to able to

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:53 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:43 AM, James Bottomley >> nPartnership.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 19:36 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Aug 10, 2020, at 11:35 AM,

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-12 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:28 PM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> Mimi's earlier point is that any IMA metadata format that involves >> unsigned digests is exposed to an alteration attack at rest or in >> transit, thus will not provide a

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-11 Thread James Morris
On Sat, 8 Aug 2020, Chuck Lever wrote: > My interest is in code integrity enforcement for executables stored > in NFS files. > > My struggle with IPE is that due to its dependence on dm-verity, it > does not seem to able to protect content that is stored separately > from its execution

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-11 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > (eg, a specification) will be critical for remote filesystems. > > > > > > > > If any of this is to be supported by a remote filesystem, then we > > > > need an unencumbered description of the new metadata format > > > > rather than code. GPL-encumbered formats cannot be contributed

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-11 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > Mimi's earlier point is that any IMA metadata format that involves > unsigned digests is exposed to an alteration attack at rest or in > transit, thus will not provide a robust end-to-end integrity > guarantee. I don't believe that is Mimi's

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-11 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:43 AM, James Bottomley > nPartnership.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 19:36 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Aug 10, 2020, at 11:35 AM, James Bottomley > > > > wrote: [...] > > > > The first basic is

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-11 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:43 AM, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 19:36 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: [...] > > > Thanks for the help! I just want to emphasize that documentation > > > (eg, a specification) will be critical for

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-11 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:43 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 19:36 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Aug 10, 2020, at 11:35 AM, James Bottomley >>> wrote: >>> On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 13:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 19:36 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2020, at 11:35 AM, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 13:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: [...] > > > > The first priority (for me, anyway) therefore is

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 10, 2020, at 11:35 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 13:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> >> >> If block layer integrity was enough, there

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread James Morris
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Are you planning to attend Plumbers? Perhaps we could propose a BoF > > > session on this topic. > > > > That sounds like a good idea. > > Other than it is already sold out. Mimi advised me off-list that she is able to attend, so I've submitted a

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 10:13 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 12:35 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 08:35 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > [...] > > > > Up to now, verifying remote filesystem file integrity has been > > > > out of scope for IMA. With

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 12:35 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 08:35 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: [...] > > > Up to now, verifying remote filesystem file integrity has been > > > out of scope for IMA. With fs-verity file signatures I can at > > > least grasp how remote file

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 08:35 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 13:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If block layer integrity was enough,

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 13:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar > > > wrote: > > > > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a > > > need for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-09 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 13:47 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > > which makes validating file integrity so

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-08 Thread Chuck Lever
> On Aug 5, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0700, James Morris wrote: >> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, James Bottomley wrote: >> >>> I'll leave Mimi to answer, but really this is exactly the question that >>> should have been asked before writing IPE. However,

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-07 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 13:31 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 02:41 +1000, James Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > > > If block layer

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-07 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 02:41 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > > > for

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-07 Thread James Morris
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > > >

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-06 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 09:51 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > > which makes validating file integrity so much

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-05 Thread James Morris
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Mimi Zohar wrote: > If block layer integrity was enough, there wouldn't have been a need > for fs-verity. Even fs-verity is limited to read only filesystems, > which makes validating file integrity so much easier. From the > beginning, we've said that fs-verity signatures

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-05 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 09:07 -0700, Deven Bowers wrote: > On 8/2/2020 9:43 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 16:31 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Sun 2020-08-02 10:03:00, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 01:55:45PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Hi! >

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-05 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0700, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, James Bottomley wrote: > > > I'll leave Mimi to answer, but really this is exactly the question that > > should have been asked before writing IPE. However, since we have the > > cart before the horse, let me break the

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-05 Thread James Morris
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, James Bottomley wrote: > I'll leave Mimi to answer, but really this is exactly the question that > should have been asked before writing IPE. However, since we have the > cart before the horse, let me break the above down into two specific > questions. The question is valid

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-04 Thread Deven Bowers
On 8/2/2020 9:43 AM, James Bottomley wrote: On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 16:31 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sun 2020-08-02 10:03:00, Sasha Levin wrote: On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 01:55:45PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! IPE is a Linux Security Module which allows for a configurable policy to

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

2020-08-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 16:31 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2020-08-02 10:03:00, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 01:55:45PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > IPE is a Linux Security Module which allows for a configurable > > > > policy to enforce integrity