LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] firmware: differentiate between signed regulatory.db and other firmware
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 15:57:18 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1525895838.3551.247.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180509191508.GR27853@wotan.suse.de>

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 19:15 +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> > > > If both are enabled, do we require both signatures or is one enough.
> > > 
> > > Good question. Considering it as a stacked LSM (although not implemented
> > > as one), I'd say its up to who enabled the Kconfig entries. If IMA and
> > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are enabled then both. If someone enabled
> > > IMA though, then surely I agree that enabling
> > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is stupid and redundant, but its up to the
> > > system integrator to decide.
> > 
> > Just because IMA-appraisal is enabled in the kernel doesn't mean that
> > firmware signatures will be verified.  That is a run time policy
> > decision.
> 
> Sure, I accept this if IMA does not do signature verification. However
> signature verification seems like a stackable LSM decision, no?

IMA-appraisal can be configured to enforce file signatures.  Refer to
discussion below as to how.

> > > If we however want to make it clear that such things as
> > > CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB are not required when IMA is enabled we
> > > could just make the kconfig depend on !IMA or something?  Or perhaps a new
> > > kconfig for IMA which if selected it means that drivers can opt to open code
> > > *further* kernel signature verification, even though IMA already is sufficient.
> > > Perhaps CONFIG_ENABLE_IMA_OVERLAPPING, and the driver depends on it?
> > 
> > The existing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE is not enough.  If there was a build
> > time IMA config that translated into an IMA policy requiring firmware
> > signature verification (eg. CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE), this could
> > be sorted out at build time.
> 
> I see makes sense.

Ok, so instead of introducing READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB, I'll
post patches introducing CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE, as described
above.

> 
> > > > Assigning a different id for regdb signed firmware allows LSMs and IMA
> > > > to handle regdb files differently.
> > > 
> > > That's not the main concern here, its the precedent we are setting here for
> > > any new kernel interface which open codes firmware signing on its own. What
> > > you are doing means other kernel users who open codes their own firmware
> > > signing may need to add yet-another reading ID. That doesn't either look
> > > well on code, and seems kind of silly from a coding perspective given
> > > the above, in which I clarify IMA still is doing its own appraisal on it.
> > 
> > Suppose,
> > 
> > 1. Either CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB or
> > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE" would be configured at build.
> > 
> > 2. If CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB is configured, not
> > "CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE", a custom IMA-policy rule that
> > appraises the firmware signature could be defined.  In this case, both
> > signature verification methods would be enforced.
> > 
> > then READING_FIRMWARE_REGULATORY_DB would not be needed.
> 
> True, however I'm suggesting that CONFIG_CFG80211_REQUIRE_SIGNED_REGDB
> could just be a mini subsystem stackable LSM.

Yes, writing regdb as a micro/mini LSM sounds reasonable.  The LSM
would differentiate between other firmware and the regulatory.db based
on the firmware's pathname.

Making regdb an LSM would have the same issues as currently - deciding
if regdb, IMA-appraisal, or both verify the regdb's signature.

Mimi

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-09 19:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-01 13:48 [PATCH 0/6] firmware: kernel signature verification Mimi Zohar
2018-05-01 13:48 ` [PATCH 1/6] firmware: permit LSMs and IMA to fail firmware sysfs fallback loading Mimi Zohar
2018-05-04  0:02   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-04  0:36     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-01 13:48 ` [PATCH 2/6] ima: prevent sysfs fallback firmware loading Mimi Zohar
2018-05-04  0:06   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-01 13:48 ` [PATCH 3/6] firmware: differentiate between signed regulatory.db and other firmware Mimi Zohar
2018-05-04  0:07   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-04  0:24     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-08 17:34       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-09 11:30         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-09 19:15           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-09 19:57             ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2018-05-09 21:22               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-09 22:06                 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-09 23:48                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-10  2:00                     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-10 23:26                       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-11  5:00                         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-11 21:52                           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-14 12:58                             ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-14 19:28                               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-15  2:02                                 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-15  3:26                                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-15 12:32                                     ` Josh Boyer
2018-05-15 12:43                                       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-01 13:48 ` [PATCH 4/6] ima: coordinate with signed regulatory.db Mimi Zohar
2018-05-01 13:48 ` [PATCH 5/6] ima: verify kernel firmware signatures when using a preallocated buffer Mimi Zohar
2018-05-01 13:48 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] ima: prevent loading firmware into a pre-allocated buffer Mimi Zohar
2018-05-04  0:10   ` Luis R. Rodriguez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1525895838.3551.247.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=andresx7@gmail.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=pjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 3/6] firmware: differentiate between signed regulatory.db and other firmware' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).