[V2 PATCH 1/3] Refactoring powerpc code for carrying over IMA measurement logs, to move non architecture specific code to security/ima.
Thiago Jung Bauermann
bauerman at linux.ibm.com
Thu Jul 16 17:51:24 UTC 2020
Hello Prakhar,
Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva at linux.microsoft.com> writes:
> On 6/19/20 5:19 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>
>> Prakhar Srivastava <prsriva at linux.microsoft.com> writes:
>>
>>> Powerpc has support to carry over the IMA measurement logs. Refatoring the
>>> non-architecture specific code out of arch/powerpc and into security/ima.
>>>
>>> The code adds support for reserving and freeing up of memory for IMA measurement
>>> logs.
>>
>> Last week, Mimi provided this feedback:
>>
>> "From your patch description, this patch should be broken up. Moving
>> the non-architecture specific code out of powerpc should be one patch.
>> Additional support should be in another patch. After each patch, the
>> code should work properly."
>>
>> That's not what you do here. You move the code, but you also make other
>> changes at the same time. This has two problems:
>>
>> 1. It makes the patch harder to review, because it's very easy to miss a
>> change.
>>
>> 2. If in the future a git bisect later points to this patch, it's not
>> clear whether the problem is because of the code movement, or because
>> of the other changes.
>>
>> When you move code, ideally the patch should only make the changes
>> necessary to make the code work at its new location. The patch which
>> does code movement should not cause any change in behavior.
>>
>> Other changes should go in separate patches, either before or after the
>> one moving the code.
>>
>> More comments below.
>>
> Hi Thiago,
>
> Apologies for the delayed response i was away for a few days.
> I am working on breaking up the changes so that its easier to review and update
> as well.
No problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Prakhar Srivastava
>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/ima.h | 10 ---
>>> arch/powerpc/kexec/ima.c | 126 ++---------------------------
>>> security/integrity/ima/ima_kexec.c | 116 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 128 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ima.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ima.h
>>> index ead488cf3981..c29ec86498f8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ima.h
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ima.h
>>> @@ -4,15 +4,6 @@
>>>
>>> struct kimage;
>>>
>>> -int ima_get_kexec_buffer(void **addr, size_t *size);
>>> -int ima_free_kexec_buffer(void);
>>> -
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_IMA
>>> -void remove_ima_buffer(void *fdt, int chosen_node);
>>> -#else
>>> -static inline void remove_ima_buffer(void *fdt, int chosen_node) {}
>>> -#endif
>>> -
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC
>>> int arch_ima_add_kexec_buffer(struct kimage *image, unsigned long load_addr,
>>> size_t size);
>>> @@ -22,7 +13,6 @@ int setup_ima_buffer(const struct kimage *image, void *fdt, int chosen_node);
>>> static inline int setup_ima_buffer(const struct kimage *image, void *fdt,
>>> int chosen_node)
>>> {
>>> - remove_ima_buffer(fdt, chosen_node);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> This is wrong. Even if the currently running kernel doesn't have
>> CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC, it should remove the IMA buffer property and memory
>> reservation from the FDT that is being prepared for the next kernel.
>>
>> This is because the IMA kexec buffer is useless for the next kernel,
>> regardless of whether the current kernel supports CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC or
>> not. Keeping it around would be a waste of memory.
>>
> I will keep it in my next revision.
> My understanding was the reserved memory is freed and property removed when IMA
> loads the logs on init.
If CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC is set, then yes. If it isn't then that needs to
happen in the function above.
> During setup_fdt in kexec, a duplicate copy of the dt is
> used, but memory still needs to be allocated, thus the property itself indicats
> presence of reserved memory.
>
>>> @@ -179,13 +64,18 @@ int setup_ima_buffer(const struct kimage *image, void *fdt, int chosen_node)
>>> int ret, addr_cells, size_cells, entry_size;
>>> u8 value[16];
>>>
>>> - remove_ima_buffer(fdt, chosen_node);
>>
>> This is wrong, for the same reason stated above.
>>
>>> if (!image->arch.ima_buffer_size)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - ret = get_addr_size_cells(&addr_cells, &size_cells);
>>> - if (ret)
>>> + ret = fdt_address_cells(fdt, chosen_node);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>> + addr_cells = ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = fdt_size_cells(fdt, chosen_node);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> return ret;
>>> + size_cells = ret;
>>>
>>> entry_size = 4 * (addr_cells + size_cells);
>>>
>>
>> I liked this change. Thanks! I agree it's better to use
>> fdt_address_cells() and fdt_size_cells() here.
>>
>> But it should be in a separate patch. Either before or after the one
>> moving the code.
>>
>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_kexec.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_kexec.c
>>> index 121de3e04af2..e1e6d6154015 100644
>>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_kexec.c
>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_kexec.c
>>> @@ -10,8 +10,124 @@
>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>>> #include <linux/kexec.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>>> +#include <linux/memblock.h>
>>> +#include <linux/libfdt.h>
>>> #include "ima.h"
>>>
>>> +static int get_addr_size_cells(int *addr_cells, int *size_cells)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device_node *root;
>>> +
>>> + root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>>> + if (!root)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + *addr_cells = of_n_addr_cells(root);
>>> + *size_cells = of_n_size_cells(root);
>>> +
>>> + of_node_put(root);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int do_get_kexec_buffer(const void *prop, int len, unsigned long *addr,
>>> + size_t *size)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret, addr_cells, size_cells;
>>> +
>>> + ret = get_addr_size_cells(&addr_cells, &size_cells);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + if (len < 4 * (addr_cells + size_cells))
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>> +
>>> + *addr = of_read_number(prop, addr_cells);
>>> + *size = of_read_number(prop + 4 * addr_cells, size_cells);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * ima_get_kexec_buffer - get IMA buffer from the previous kernel
>>> + * @addr: On successful return, set to point to the buffer contents.
>>> + * @size: On successful return, set to the buffer size.
>>> + *
>>> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on error.
>>> + */
>>> +int ima_get_kexec_buffer(void **addr, size_t *size)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret, len;
>>> + unsigned long tmp_addr;
>>> + size_t tmp_size;
>>> + const void *prop;
>>> +
>>> + prop = of_get_property(of_chosen, "linux,ima-kexec-buffer", &len);
>>> + if (!prop)
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>> +
>>> + ret = do_get_kexec_buffer(prop, len, &tmp_addr, &tmp_size);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + *addr = __va(tmp_addr);
>>> + *size = tmp_size;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> The functions above were moved without being changed. Good.
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * ima_free_kexec_buffer - free memory used by the IMA buffer
>>> + */
>>> +int ima_free_kexec_buffer(void)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> + unsigned long addr;
>>> + size_t size;
>>> + struct property *prop;
>>> +
>>> + prop = of_find_property(of_chosen, "linux,ima-kexec-buffer", NULL);
>>> + if (!prop)
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>> +
>>> + ret = do_get_kexec_buffer(prop->value, prop->length, &addr, &size);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = of_remove_property(of_chosen, prop);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + return memblock_free(__pa(addr), size);
>>
>> Here you added a __pa() call. Do you store a virtual address in
>> linux,ima-kexec-buffer property? Doesn't it make more sense to store a
>> physical address?
>>
> trying to minimize the changes here as do_get_kexec_buffer return the va.
> I will refactor this to remove the double translation.
In the powerpc version, do_get_kexec_buffer() returns the pa, and one of
its callers does the va translation. I think that worked well.
>> Even if making this change is the correct thing to do, it should be a
>> separate patch, unless it can't be avoided. And if that is the case,
>> then it should be explained in the commit message.
>>
>>> +
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * remove_ima_buffer - remove the IMA buffer property and reservation from @fdt
>>> + *
>>> + * The IMA measurement buffer is of no use to a subsequent kernel, so we always
>>> + * remove it from the device tree.
>>> + */
>>> +void remove_ima_buffer(void *fdt, int chosen_node)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret, len;
>>> + unsigned long addr;
>>> + size_t size;
>>> + const void *prop;
>>> +
>>> + prop = fdt_getprop(fdt, chosen_node, "linux,ima-kexec-buffer", &len);
>>> + if (!prop)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + do_get_kexec_buffer(prop, len, &addr, &size);
>>> + ret = fdt_delprop(fdt, chosen_node, "linux,ima-kexec-buffer");
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + memblock_free(addr, size);
>>> +}
>>
>> Here is another function that changed when moved. This one I know to be
>> wrong. You're confusing the purposes of remove_ima_buffer() and
>> ima_free_kexec_buffer().
>>
>> You did send me a question about them nearly three weeks ago which I
>> only answered today, so I apologize. Also, their names could more
>> clearly reflect their differences, so it's bad naming on my part.
>>
>> With IMA kexec buffers, there are two kernels (and thus their two
>> respective, separate device trees) to be concerned about:
>>
>> 1. the currently running kernel, which uses the live device tree
>> (accessed with the of_* functions) and the memblock subsystem;
>>
>> 2. the kernel which is being loaded by kexec, which will use the FDT
>> blob being passed around as argument to these functions, and the memory
>> reservations in the memory reservation table of the FDT blob.
>>
>> ima_free_kexec_buffer() is used by IMA in the currently running kernel.
>> Therefore the device tree it is concerned about is the live one, and
>> thus uses the of_* functions to access it. And uses memblock to change
>> the memory reservation.
>>
>> remove_ima_buffer() on the other hand is used by the kexec code to
>> prepare an FDT blob for the kernel that is being loaded. It should not
>> make any changes to live device tree, nor to memblock allocations. It
>> should only make changes to the FDT blob.
>>
> Thank you for this, greatly appreciate clearing my misunderstandings.
You're welcome. Sorry again for not answering your question before you
sent this patch series.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list