Re: [PATCH security-next v4 13/32] LoadPin: Rename "enable" to "enforce"

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/1/18 5:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> LoadPin's "enable" setting is really about enforcement, not whether
>> or not the LSM is using LSM hooks. Instead, split this out so that LSM
>> enabling can be logically distinct from whether enforcement is happening
>> (for example, the pinning happens when the LSM is enabled, but the pin
>> is only checked when "enforce" is set). This allows LoadPin to continue
>
> ISTB:             when "enforcing" is set).  ??

Whoops, thanks. And I need to do s/enable/enabled/ in the log. I'll fix this up.

-Kees

>
>> to operate sanely in test environments once LSM enable/disable is
>> centrally handled (i.e. we want LoadPin to be enabled separately from
>> its enforcement).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  security/loadpin/Kconfig   |  4 ++--
>>  security/loadpin/loadpin.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/loadpin/Kconfig b/security/loadpin/Kconfig
>> index dd01aa91e521..8653608a3693 100644
>> --- a/security/loadpin/Kconfig
>> +++ b/security/loadpin/Kconfig
>> @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ config SECURITY_LOADPIN
>>         have a root filesystem backed by a read-only device such as
>>         dm-verity or a CDROM.
>>
>> -config SECURITY_LOADPIN_ENABLED
>> +config SECURITY_LOADPIN_ENFORCING
>>       bool "Enforce LoadPin at boot"
>>       depends on SECURITY_LOADPIN
>>       help
>>         If selected, LoadPin will enforce pinning at boot. If not
>>         selected, it can be enabled at boot with the kernel parameter
>> -       "loadpin.enabled=1".
>> +       "loadpin.enforcing=1".
>> diff --git a/security/loadpin/loadpin.c b/security/loadpin/loadpin.c
>> index 0716af28808a..d8a68a6f6fef 100644
>> --- a/security/loadpin/loadpin.c
>> +++ b/security/loadpin/loadpin.c
>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static void report_load(const char *origin, struct file *file, char *operation)
>>       kfree(pathname);
>>  }
>>
>> -static int enabled = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN_ENABLED);
>> +static int enforcing = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN_ENFORCING);
>>  static struct super_block *pinned_root;
>>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pinned_root_spinlock);
>>
>> @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ static struct ctl_path loadpin_sysctl_path[] = {
>>
>>  static struct ctl_table loadpin_sysctl_table[] = {
>>       {
>> -             .procname       = "enabled",
>> -             .data           = &enabled,
>> +             .procname       = "enforcing",
>> +             .data           = &enforcing,
>>               .maxlen         = sizeof(int),
>>               .mode           = 0644,
>>               .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec_minmax,
>> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static void check_pinning_enforcement(struct super_block *mnt_sb)
>>                                          loadpin_sysctl_table))
>>                       pr_notice("sysctl registration failed!\n");
>>               else
>> -                     pr_info("load pinning can be disabled.\n");
>> +                     pr_info("enforcement can be disabled.\n");
>>       } else
>>               pr_info("load pinning engaged.\n");
>>  }
>> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int loadpin_read_file(struct file *file, enum kernel_read_file_id id)
>>
>>       /* This handles the older init_module API that has a NULL file. */
>>       if (!file) {
>> -             if (!enabled) {
>> +             if (!enforcing) {
>>                       report_load(origin, NULL, "old-api-pinning-ignored");
>>                       return 0;
>>               }
>> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static int loadpin_read_file(struct file *file, enum kernel_read_file_id id)
>>                * Unlock now since it's only pinned_root we care about.
>>                * In the worst case, we will (correctly) report pinning
>>                * failures before we have announced that pinning is
>> -              * enabled. This would be purely cosmetic.
>> +              * enforcing. This would be purely cosmetic.
>>                */
>>               spin_unlock(&pinned_root_spinlock);
>>               check_pinning_enforcement(pinned_root);
>> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static int loadpin_read_file(struct file *file, enum kernel_read_file_id id)
>>       }
>>
>>       if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pinned_root) || load_root != pinned_root) {
>> -             if (unlikely(!enabled)) {
>> +             if (unlikely(!enforcing)) {
>>                       report_load(origin, file, "pinning-ignored");
>>                       return 0;
>>               }
>> @@ -186,10 +186,11 @@ static struct security_hook_list loadpin_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>>
>>  void __init loadpin_add_hooks(void)
>>  {
>> -     pr_info("ready to pin (currently %sabled)", enabled ? "en" : "dis");
>> +     pr_info("ready to pin (currently %senforcing)\n",
>> +             enforcing ? "" : "not ");
>>       security_add_hooks(loadpin_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(loadpin_hooks), "loadpin");
>>  }
>>
>>  /* Should not be mutable after boot, so not listed in sysfs (perm == 0). */
>> -module_param(enabled, int, 0);
>> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(enabled, "Pin module/firmware loading (default: true)");
>> +module_param(enforcing, int, 0);
>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(enforcing, "Enforce module/firmware pinning");
>>
>
>
> --
> ~Randy



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security