Re: [Linux-ima-user] [systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/2] main: added support for loading IMA custom policies

[Roberto S. <rob...@po...>]

On 02/16/2012 03:30 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Roberto Sassu<rob...@po...>  wrote:
>> On 02/16/2012 05:56 AM, Michael Cassaniti wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2012 04:12, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/15/2012 05:55 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Roberto
>>>>> Sassu<rob...@po...>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Roberto
>>>>>>> Sassu<rob...@po...>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The new function ima_setup() loads an IMA custom policy from a
>>>>>>>> file in the
>>>>>>>> default location '/etc/sysconfig/ima-policy', if present, and
>>>>>>>> writes it to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> isn't /etc/sysconfig too specific to Fedora?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gustavo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> probably yes. I see the code in 'src/locale-setup.c' where the
>>>>>> the configuration directory depends on the target distribution.
>>>>>> I can implement something like that in my patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't IMA be changed? Lennart seems to be pushing for distribution
>>>>> independent location files. If you can get IMA people to agree on
>>>>> something, just use this one instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> People that use IMA with systemd must use this location. Eventually
>>>>> this will happen with every configuration file we support.
>>>>>
>>>> The location of the policy file is not IMA dependent. I chose that
>>>> because it seemed to me the right place where to put this file.
>>>> So, i can easily modify the location to be distribution independent
>>>> but i don't known which directory would be appropriate.
>>>> Any proposal?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Roberto Sassu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I certainly have no such things in my system and see no point in
>>>>>>> calling ima_setup() on it. Or even compiling the source file in such
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. I can enclose the code in ima-setup.c within an 'ifdef HAVE_IMA'
>>>>>> statement, as it happens for SELinux. However an issue is that there
>>>>>> is no a specific package for IMA that can be checked to set the
>>>>>> HAVE_IMA
>>>>>> definition to yes. Instead, the code can be enabled for example by
>>>>>> adding the parameter '--enable_ima' in the configure script.
>>>>>
>>>>> okay.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>>>>> http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> MSN: bar...@gm...
>>>>> Skype: gsbarbieri
>>>>> Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202
>>>
>>> I'm under the impression this function belongs to a userspace tool. If
>>> not then I just don't see a good reason that this patch is required. I
>>> do understand that the IMA policy should be loaded as early as possible,
>>> but I believe that early userspace scripts should be doing that work. If
>>> it is a userspace function, then whatever makes you happy, other
>>> distro's will roll their own.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Mimi for your contribution. I just want to add some
>> considerations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael
>>
>> the reason for which the loading of IMA policies has been placed in
>> the main Systemd executable is that the measurement process performed
>> by IMA should start as early as possible. Otherwise, in order to build
>> the 'chain of trust' during the boot process from the BIOS to software
>> applications, it is required to measure those components loaded before
>> IMA is initialized with other means (for example from the boot loader).
>>
>> The more the IMA initialization is postponed, greater is the number of
>> components that must be measured using the second way. For instance,
>> if the policy loading is done in a userspace script you have to measure
>> the interpreter and the configuration files read by the latter.
>>
>> Since the policy loading can be implemented in different ways depending
>> on the init system (systemd, upstart, ...), an user must identify the
>> components to be measured for each case. Instead, if the IMA policy is
>> loaded in the main Systemd executable, only this file must be measured
>> by the boot loader.
>
> Then I wonder: why not make an ima-init binary that:
>    - does ima_setup()
>    - exec systemd || upstart || ...
>
> this way you only have to audit this very small file and not systemd
> itself, it's very early and so on.
>

This does not work because SELinux is initialized inside Systemd and IMA
requires it for parsing LSM rules in the policy.

Regards

Roberto Sassu