| Message ID | 1582744207-25969-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ima: add a new CONFIG for loading arch-specific policies | expand |
Hi Nayna, > + > +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > + bool > + depends on IMA > + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > + default n > + help > + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or > + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies. > Why is the default for this new config "n"? Is there any reason to not turn on this config if both IMA and IMA_ARCH_POLICY are set to y? thanks, -lakshmi
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 11:21 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > Hi Nayna, > > > + > > +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > + bool > > + depends on IMA > > + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > + default n > > + help > > + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or > > + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies. > > > > Why is the default for this new config "n"? > Is there any reason to not turn on this config if both IMA and > IMA_ARCH_POLICY are set to y? Good catch. Having "IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT" depend on "IMA_ARCH_POLICY" doesn't make sense. "IMA_ARCH_POLICY" needs to be selected. thanks, Mimi
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 15:36 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 11:21 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Hi Nayna, > > > > > + > > > +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > > + bool > > > + depends on IMA > > > + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > + default n > > > + help > > > + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or > > > + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies. > > > > > > > Why is the default for this new config "n"? > > Is there any reason to not turn on this config if both IMA and > > IMA_ARCH_POLICY are set to y? > > Good catch. Having "IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT" depend on > "IMA_ARCH_POLICY" doesn't make sense. "IMA_ARCH_POLICY" needs to be > selected. After discussing this some more with Nayna, the new Kconfig indicates that the architecture defines the arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_get_ima_policy() functions, but doesn't automatically enable IMA_ARCH_POLICY. The decision to enable IMA_ARCH_POLICY is left up to whoever is building the kernel. The patch, at least this aspect of it, is correct. Mimi
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 14:10 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific > functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the IMA > include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch > defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, allowing > the different architectures to select it. > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > --- > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + > include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK > select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT > # > # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. > # > @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT > prompt "Enable secure boot support" > bool > depends on PPC_POWERNV > - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > help > Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security > policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig > index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 > select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED > select SWIOTLB > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > > config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 > select VIRT_TO_BUS > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=y] && IMA [=y] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [=n] Selected by [y]: - X86 [=y] && EFI [=y] Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your tags. thanks! Mimi > > config INSTRUCTION_DECODER > def_bool y > diff --git a/include/linux/ima.h b/include/linux/ima.h > index 1659217e9b60..aefe758f4466 100644 > --- a/include/linux/ima.h > +++ b/include/linux/ima.h > @@ -30,8 +30,7 @@ extern void ima_kexec_cmdline(const void *buf, int size); > extern void ima_add_kexec_buffer(struct kimage *image); > #endif > > -#if (defined(CONFIG_X86) && defined(CONFIG_EFI)) || defined(CONFIG_S390) \ > - || defined(CONFIG_PPC_SECURE_BOOT) > +#ifdef CONFIG_IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > extern bool arch_ima_get_secureboot(void); > extern const char * const *arch_get_ima_policy(void); > #else > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > index 3f3ee4e2eb0d..d17972aa413a 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > @@ -327,3 +327,12 @@ config IMA_QUEUE_EARLY_BOOT_KEYS > depends on IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS > depends on SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING > default y > + > +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > + bool > + depends on IMA > + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > + default n > + help > + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or > + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 14:10 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific > > functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the IMA > > include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch > > defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, allowing > > the different architectures to select it. > > > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> > > Cc: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.ibm.com> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- > > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + > > include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- > > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC > > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE > > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK > > select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT > > # > > # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. > > # > > @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT > > prompt "Enable secure boot support" > > bool > > depends on PPC_POWERNV > > - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > help > > Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security > > policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user > > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig > > index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 > > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig > > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 > > select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED > > select SWIOTLB > > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > > > > > config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 > > select VIRT_TO_BUS > > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI > > Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime > policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore > still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm > seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for > IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=y] && IMA [=y] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [=n] > Selected by [y]: > - X86 [=y] && EFI [=y] > > Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is > acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your > tags. > Ehm, no, warnings like these are not really acceptable. It means there is an inconsistency in the way the Kconfig dependencies are defined. Does this help: select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI && IMA_ARCH_POLICY ? > > > > > config INSTRUCTION_DECODER > > def_bool y > > diff --git a/include/linux/ima.h b/include/linux/ima.h > > index 1659217e9b60..aefe758f4466 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/ima.h > > +++ b/include/linux/ima.h > > @@ -30,8 +30,7 @@ extern void ima_kexec_cmdline(const void *buf, int size); > > extern void ima_add_kexec_buffer(struct kimage *image); > > #endif > > > > -#if (defined(CONFIG_X86) && defined(CONFIG_EFI)) || defined(CONFIG_S390) \ > > - || defined(CONFIG_PPC_SECURE_BOOT) > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > extern bool arch_ima_get_secureboot(void); > > extern const char * const *arch_get_ima_policy(void); > > #else > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > > index 3f3ee4e2eb0d..d17972aa413a 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > > @@ -327,3 +327,12 @@ config IMA_QUEUE_EARLY_BOOT_KEYS > > depends on IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS > > depends on SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING > > default y > > + > > +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > + bool > > + depends on IMA > > + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > + default n > > + help > > + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or > > + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies. > > > >
On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 15:52 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 14:10 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific > > > functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the IMA > > > include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch > > > defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, allowing > > > the different architectures to select it. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com> > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> > > > Cc: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.ibm.com> > > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > > > --- > > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + > > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + > > > include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- > > > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > > > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC > > > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE > > > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK > > > select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT > > > # > > > # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. > > > # > > > @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT > > > prompt "Enable secure boot support" > > > bool > > > depends on PPC_POWERNV > > > - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > help > > > Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security > > > policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig > > > index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 > > > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig > > > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 > > > select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED > > > select SWIOTLB > > > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > > > > > > > > config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 > > > select VIRT_TO_BUS > > > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS > > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI > > > > Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime > > policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore > > still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm > > seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. > > > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for > > IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=y] && IMA [=y] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [=n] > > Selected by [y]: > > - X86 [=y] && EFI [=y] > > > > Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is > > acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your > > tags. > > > > Ehm, no, warnings like these are not really acceptable. It means there > is an inconsistency in the way the Kconfig dependencies are defined. > > Does this help: > > select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI && IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > ? Yes, that's fine for x86. Michael, Martin, do you want something similar or would you prefer actually selecting IMA_ARCH_POLICY? Mimi
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 09:56:58AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 15:52 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 > > > > select VIRT_TO_BUS > > > > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS > > > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS > > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI > > > > > > Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime > > > policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore > > > still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm > > > seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. > > > > > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for > > > IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > > Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=y] && IMA [=y] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [=n] > > > Selected by [y]: > > > - X86 [=y] && EFI [=y] > > > > > > Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is > > > acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your > > > tags. > > > > > > > Ehm, no, warnings like these are not really acceptable. It means there > > is an inconsistency in the way the Kconfig dependencies are defined. > > > > Does this help: > > > > select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI && IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > > ? > > Yes, that's fine for x86. Michael, Martin, do you want something > similar or would you prefer actually selecting IMA_ARCH_POLICY? For s390 something like select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if IMA_ARCH_POLICY should be fine. Thanks, Heiko
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 15:52 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 14:10 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: >> > > Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific >> > > functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the IMA >> > > include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch >> > > defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, allowing >> > > the different architectures to select it. >> > > >> > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> >> > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com> >> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> >> > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> >> > > Cc: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.ibm.com> >> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> >> > > --- >> > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- >> > > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + >> > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + >> > > include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- >> > > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ >> > > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> > > index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig >> > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC >> > > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE >> > > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK >> > > select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 >> > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT >> > > # >> > > # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. >> > > # >> > > @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT >> > > prompt "Enable secure boot support" >> > > bool >> > > depends on PPC_POWERNV >> > > - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY >> > > help >> > > Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security >> > > policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user >> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig >> > > index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig >> > > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 >> > > select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED >> > > select SWIOTLB >> > > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR >> > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT >> > > >> > > >> > > config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER >> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 >> > > select VIRT_TO_BUS >> > > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS >> > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS >> > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI >> > >> > Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime >> > policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore >> > still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm >> > seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. >> > >> > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for >> > IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT >> > Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=y] && IMA [=y] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [=n] >> > Selected by [y]: >> > - X86 [=y] && EFI [=y] >> > >> > Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is >> > acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your >> > tags. >> > >> >> Ehm, no, warnings like these are not really acceptable. It means there >> is an inconsistency in the way the Kconfig dependencies are defined. >> >> Does this help: >> >> select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI && IMA_ARCH_POLICY >> >> ? > > Yes, that's fine for x86. Michael, Martin, do you want something > similar or would you prefer actually selecting IMA_ARCH_POLICY? For powerpc this should be all we need: diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig index 497b7d0b2d7e..a5cfde432983 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig @@ -976,12 +976,13 @@ config PPC_MEM_KEYS config PPC_SECURE_BOOT prompt "Enable secure boot support" bool depends on PPC_POWERNV depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT help Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user to enable OS secure boot on systems that have firmware support for it. If in doubt say N. cheers
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT # # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. # @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT prompt "Enable secure boot support" bool depends on PPC_POWERNV - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY help Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED select SWIOTLB select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 select VIRT_TO_BUS select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI config INSTRUCTION_DECODER def_bool y diff --git a/include/linux/ima.h b/include/linux/ima.h index 1659217e9b60..aefe758f4466 100644 --- a/include/linux/ima.h +++ b/include/linux/ima.h @@ -30,8 +30,7 @@ extern void ima_kexec_cmdline(const void *buf, int size); extern void ima_add_kexec_buffer(struct kimage *image); #endif -#if (defined(CONFIG_X86) && defined(CONFIG_EFI)) || defined(CONFIG_S390) \ - || defined(CONFIG_PPC_SECURE_BOOT) +#ifdef CONFIG_IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT extern bool arch_ima_get_secureboot(void); extern const char * const *arch_get_ima_policy(void); #else diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig index 3f3ee4e2eb0d..d17972aa413a 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig +++ b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig @@ -327,3 +327,12 @@ config IMA_QUEUE_EARLY_BOOT_KEYS depends on IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS depends on SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING default y + +config IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT + bool + depends on IMA + depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY + default n + help + This option is selected by architectures to enable secure and/or + trusted boot based on IMA runtime policies.
Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the IMA include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, allowing the different architectures to select it. Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Cc: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> --- arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)