Re: [PATCH] security: Fix IMA Kconfig for dependencies on ARM64

From: Jiandi An
Date: Wed Mar 07 2018 - 16:12:19 EST



On 03/07/2018 01:41 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 14:21 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 11:08 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 13:55 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 11:51 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:


On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:26:26PM -0600, Jiandi An wrote:


TPM_CRB driver is the TPM support for ARM64.ÂÂIf it
is built as module, TPM chip is registered after IMA
init.ÂÂtpm_pcr_read() in IMA driver would fail and
display the following message even though eventually
there is TPM chip on the system:

ima: No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass! (rc=-19)

Fix IMA Kconfig to select TPM_CRB so TPM_CRB driver is
built in kernel and initializes before IMA driver.

Signed-off-by: Jiandi An <anjiandi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Âsecurity/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 1 +
Â1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
index 35ef693..6a8f677 100644
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ config IMA
 select CRYPTO_HASH_INFO
 select TCG_TPM if HAS_IOMEM && !UML
 select TCG_TIS if TCG_TPM && X86

Well, this explains why IMA doesn't work on one of my X86 systems:
it's got a non i2c infineon TPM.




+ select TCG_CRB if TCG_TPM && ACPI
 select TCG_IBMVTPM if TCG_TPM && PPC_PSERIES
 help
 ÂÂThe Trusted Computing Group(TCG) runtime Integrity

This seems really weird, why are any specific TPM drivers
linked to IMA config, we have lots of drivers..

I don't think I've ever seen this pattern in Kconfig before?

As you've seen by the current discussions, the TPM driver needs
to be initialized prior to IMA. ÂOtherwise IMA goes into TPM-
bypass mode. ÂThat implies that the TPM must be builtin to the
kernel, and not as a kernel module.

Actually, that's not necessarily true: ÂIf we don't begin appraisal
until after the initrd phase, then the initrd can load TPM modules
before IMA starts.

This would involve a bit of code rejigging to not require a TPM
until IMA wants to write its first measurement, but it looks doable
and would get us out of having to second guess TPM selections.

The question is about measurement, not appraisal. ÂAlthough the
initramfs might be measured, the initramfs can access files on the
real root filesystem. ÂThose files need to be measured, before they
are used/accessed.

Isn't it a question of threat model? ÂBecause the initrd is measured,
you know it's the one you specified and you should know its security
properties, so measurement doesn't really need to begin until the root
pivots. ÂAt that point you pick up the boot aggregate so the log now is
tied to the initrd measurement. ÂConversely, I can't really see a
threat model where you could trick a correctly measured initrd into
subverting IMA, especially because listening network daemons aren't
usually active at this stage.

I'm not saying there isn't a use case for wanting your TPM built in,
I'm just saying I don't think it needs to be required for everyone who
uses IMA.

James


ima_init() first calls tpm_pcr_read() which tries to use underlying
registered TPM chip driver and send read PCR TPM command to the TPM
chip. If IMA driver is enabled and ima_init() happens, we see this.

In security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c, init_ima() is in late_initcall.
And it calls ima_init().

late_initcall(init_ima); /* Start IMA after the TPM is available */

So as long as init_ima() is called, need to at least enable the
TPM driver for the platform right?

I'm just following current IMA Kconfig where it's selecting different
underlying TPM chip drivers for various platforms respectively when
CONFIG_IMA is set to Y because IMA driver init calls tpm_pcr_read()
which needs to use TPM.

--
Jiandi An
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.