Mimi Zohar <zo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Allow LSMs and IMA to differentiate between the kexec_load and
> kexec_file_load syscalls by adding an "unnecessary" call to
> security_kernel_read_file() in kexec_load.  This would be similar to the
> existing init_module syscall calling security_kernel_read_file().

Given the reasonable desire to load a policy that ensures everything
has a signature I don't have fundamental objections.

security_kernel_read_file as a hook seems an odd choice.  At the very
least it has a bad name because there is no file reading going on here.

I am concerned that I don't see CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG being tested
anywhere.  Which means I could have a kernel compiled without that and I
would be allowed to use kexec_file_load without signature checking.
While kexec_load would be denied.

Am I missing something here?

Eric



> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kexec.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec.c b/kernel/kexec.c
> index aed8fb2564b3..d1386cfc6796 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>  #include <linux/capability.h>
>  #include <linux/mm.h>
>  #include <linux/file.h>
> +#include <linux/security.h>
>  #include <linux/kexec.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>  #include <linux/list.h>
> @@ -195,11 +196,21 @@ static int do_kexec_load(unsigned long entry, unsigned 
> long nr_segments,
>  static inline int kexec_load_check(unsigned long nr_segments,
>                                  unsigned long flags)
>  {
> +     int result;
> +
>       /* We only trust the superuser with rebooting the system. */
>       if (!capable(CAP_SYS_BOOT) || kexec_load_disabled)
>               return -EPERM;
>  
>       /*
> +      * Allow LSMs and IMA to differentiate between kexec_load and
> +      * kexec_file_load syscalls.
> +      */
> +     result = security_kernel_read_file(NULL, READING_KEXEC_IMAGE);
> +     if (result < 0)
> +             return result;
> +
> +     /*
>        * Verify we have a legal set of flags
>        * This leaves us room for future extensions.
>        */

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Reply via email to