[PATCH v13 2/6] powerpc: Move arch independent ima kexec functions to drivers/of/kexec.c
Thiago Jung Bauermann
bauerman at linux.ibm.com
Tue Dec 22 19:40:32 EST 2020
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas at linux.microsoft.com> writes:
> On 12/22/20 11:45 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 10:53 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> On 12/22/20 6:26 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> Hi Mimi,
>>>> On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 09:57 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kexec/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/kexec/Makefile
>>>>> index 4aff6846c772..b6c52608cb49 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kexec/Makefile
>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kexec/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -9,13 +9,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PPC32) += relocate_32.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE) += file_load.o ranges.o
>>>>> file_load_$(BITS).o elf_$(BITS).o
>>>>> -ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC
>>>>> -ifdef CONFIG_IMA
>>>>> -obj-y += ima.o
>>>> Notice how "kexec/ima.o" is only included if the architecture supports
>>>> it and IMA is configured. In addition only if CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC is
>>>> configured, is the IMA measurement list carried across kexec. After
>>>> moving the rest of ima.c to drivers/of/kexec.c, this changes. Notice
>>>> how drivers/of/Kconfig includes kexec.o:
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE) += kexec.o
>>>> It is not dependent on CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC. Shouldn't all of the
>>>> functions defined in ima.c being moved to kexec.o be defined within a
>>>> CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC ifdef?
>>> Thanks for reviewing the changes.
>>> In "drivers/of/kexec.c" the function remove_ima_buffer() is defined
>>> under "#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC"
>>> setup_ima_buffer() is defined under "#ifdef CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC" - the same
>>> way it was defined in "arch/powerpc/kexec/ima.c".
>>> As you know, CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC depends on CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC (as
>>> defined in "security/integrity/ima/Kconfig").
>>> ima_get_kexec_buffer() and ima_free_kexec_buffer() are unconditionally
>>> defined in "drivers/of/kexec.c" even though they are called only when
>>> CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is enabled. I will update these two functions to
>>> be moved under "#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC"
>> The issue is the reverse. CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC may be enabled without
>> CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC being enabled. This allows the architecture to
>> support carrying the measurement list across kexec, but requires
>> enabling it at build time.
>> Only if CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is enabled should any of these functions
>> be compiled at build. This allows restoring the previous IMA
>> measurement list, even if CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC is not enabled.
>> Only if CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC is enabled, should carrying the measurement
>> list across kexec be enabled. See how arch_ima_add_kexec_buffer,
>> write_number, setup_ima_buffer are ifdef'ed in
> Yes - I agree. I will make the following changes:
> => Enable the functions moved from "arch/powerpc/kexec/ima.c" to
> "drivers/of/kexec.c" only when CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is enabled.
> => Also, compile write_number() and setup_ima_buffer() only when
> CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC is enabled.
Sounds good, with one additional change:
So far, CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC was tested only in files that were built
when CONFIG_IMA was set. With this series this is not the case anymore
(in drivers/of/kexec.c). The simplest way to keep this consistent is to
only enable CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC if CONFIG_IMA is also set.
For example, with this:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index e9f13fe08492..4ddd17215ecf 100644
@@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ config KEXEC
bool "kexec file based system call"
- select HAVE_IMA_KEXEC
+ select HAVE_IMA_KEXEC if IMA
depends on PPC64
And then the same thing on the arm64 patch.
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
More information about the linux-arm-kernel