Ocfs2 devel - Feb 2023 - [PATCH v7 6/6] evm: Support multiple LSMs providing an xattr

From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>

Currently, evm_inode_init_security() processes a single LSM xattr from
the array passed by security_inode_init_security(), and calculates the
HMAC on it and other inode metadata.

Given that initxattrs() callbacks, called by
security_inode_init_security(), expect that this array is terminated when
the xattr name is set to NULL, reuse the same assumption to scan all xattrs
and to calculate the HMAC on all of them.

Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com>
---
 security/integrity/evm/evm.h        |  2 ++
 security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c |  9 ++++++++-
 security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c   | 16 +++++++++++-----
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm.h b/security/integrity/evm/evm.h
index f8b8c5004fc7..f799d72a59fa 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm.h
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm.h
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ struct evm_digest {
 	char digest[IMA_MAX_DIGEST_SIZE];
 } __packed;
 
+int evm_protected_xattr(const char *req_xattr_name);
+
 int evm_init_key(void);
 int evm_update_evmxattr(struct dentry *dentry,
 			const char *req_xattr_name,
diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
b/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
index 708de9656bbd..68f99faac316 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
@@ -389,6 +389,7 @@ int evm_init_hmac(struct inode *inode, const struct xattr
*lsm_xattr,
 		  char *hmac_val)
 {
 	struct shash_desc *desc;
+	const struct xattr *xattr;
 
 	desc = init_desc(EVM_XATTR_HMAC, HASH_ALGO_SHA1);
 	if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
@@ -396,7 +397,13 @@ int evm_init_hmac(struct inode *inode, const struct xattr
*lsm_xattr,
 		return PTR_ERR(desc);
 	}
 
-	crypto_shash_update(desc, lsm_xattr->value, lsm_xattr->value_len);
+	for (xattr = lsm_xattr; xattr->name != NULL; xattr++) {
+		if (!evm_protected_xattr(xattr->name))
+			continue;
+
+		crypto_shash_update(desc, xattr->value, xattr->value_len);
+	}
+
 	hmac_add_misc(desc, inode, EVM_XATTR_HMAC, hmac_val);
 	kfree(desc);
 	return 0;
diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
b/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
index 0a312cafb7de..1cf6871a0019 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int evm_protected_xattr_common(const char
*req_xattr_name,
 	return found;
 }
 
-static int evm_protected_xattr(const char *req_xattr_name)
+int evm_protected_xattr(const char *req_xattr_name)
 {
 	return evm_protected_xattr_common(req_xattr_name, false);
 }
@@ -851,14 +851,20 @@ int evm_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct
inode *dir,
 {
 	struct evm_xattr *xattr_data;
 	struct xattr *xattr, *evm_xattr;
+	bool evm_protected_xattrs = false;
 	int rc;
 
-	if (!(evm_initialized & EVM_INIT_HMAC) || !xattrs ||
-	    !evm_protected_xattr(xattrs->name))
+	if (!(evm_initialized & EVM_INIT_HMAC) || !xattrs)
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
-	for (xattr = xattrs; xattr->value != NULL; xattr++)
-		;
+	for (xattr = xattrs; xattr->value != NULL; xattr++) {
+		if (evm_protected_xattr(xattr->name))
+			evm_protected_xattrs = true;
+	}
+
+	/* EVM xattr not needed. */
+	if (!evm_protected_xattrs)
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
 	evm_xattr = xattr;
 
-- 
2.25.1

On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
> 
> Currently, evm_inode_init_security() processes a single LSM xattr from
> the array passed by security_inode_init_security(), and calculates the
> HMAC on it and other inode metadata.
> 
> Given that initxattrs() callbacks, called by
> security_inode_init_security(), expect that this array is terminated when
> the xattr name is set to NULL, reuse the same assumption to scan all xattrs
> and to calculate the HMAC on all of them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com>

Normally changing the contents of the EVM HMAC calculation would break
existing systems.  Assuming for the time being this is safe, at what
point will it affect backwards compatability?  Should it be documented
now or then?

-- 
thanks,

Mimi