Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Optional Paths Proposal #93

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
280 changes: 280 additions & 0 deletions 91-ignore-path-for-ima.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
<!--
**Note:** When your enhancement is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.

To get started with this template:

- [ ] **Create an issue in keylime/enhancements**
When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please ensure to complete all
fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the enhancement. You
can leave that blank until this enhancement is made a pull request, and then
go back to the enhancement and add the link.
- [ ] **Make a copy of this template.**
name it `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no
leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
- [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary", and "Motivation" sections.
These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the enhancement with the
appropriate SIG(s).
- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
the enhancement clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just
start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
subsequent PRs.
-->
# enhancement-91: Optional Path for IMA measurement

<!--
This is the title of your enhancement. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
title can help communicate what the enhancement is and should be considered as part of
any review.
-->

<!--
A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a enhancement and for
highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard enhancement
template.
-->

<!-- toc -->
- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
- [Summary](#summary)
- [Motivation](#motivation)
- [Goals](#goals)
- [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
- [Proposal](#proposal)
- [User Stories (optional)](#user-stories-optional)
- [Story 1](#story-1)
- [Story 2](#story-2)
- [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
- [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
- [Design Details](#design-details)
- [Test Plan](#test-plan)
- [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
- [Infrastructure Needed (optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
<!-- /toc -->

## Release Signoff Checklist

<!--
**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
issue in [keylime/enhancements] referencing this enhancement and targeting a release**.

For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
Keylime i.e., [keylime/keylime], we require the following Release
Signoff checklist to be completed.

Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
-->

- [ ] Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to pull request in [keylime/enhancements]
- [ ] Core members have approved the issue with the label `in-progress`
- [ ] Design details are appropriately documented
- [ ] Test plan is in place
- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [keylime/keylime-docs]

<!--
**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
-->

## Summary

<!--
This section is incredibly important for producing high quality user-focused
documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be
possible to collect this information before implementation begins in order to
avoid requiring implementers to split their attention between writing release
notes and implementing the feature itself. Reviewers
should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section is
useful for a wide audience.

A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.
-->

It may not always be evident to a user on what the final location of a file may
be when creating an allowlist. This enhancement proposes a new config value
that allows a user to work with both filenames with an arbitrary path, alongside
the current behavior of a full path set.

## Motivation

<!--
This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of
this enhancement. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users.
-->

Some systems may have files that are in different locations depending on the
deployment. For example, a file `widgets` may be in `/opt/my_app` on one system
and `/usr/my_app` on another. This enhancement proposes a new config value that
allows a user to have keylime IMA ignore the path of a file if not present.

This will especially be useful for users who want an application monitored by
keylime that may deploy to different systems with different paths.

It would then allow an upstream project to generate signed allowlists that can
be used by downstream systems without having to modify the allowlist to set
deployment specific paths.

However, those wanting the stronger guarantees of a full path set will still be
able to leverage that behavior.

### Goals

<!--
List the specific goals of the enhancement. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
know that this has succeeded?
-->

Allow users to only state a filename to be measured and not always the full
path.

### Non-Goals

<!--
What is out of scope for this enhancement? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
and make progress.
-->

## Proposal

<!--
This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
implementation. The "Design Details" section below is for the real
nitty-gritty.
-->

A bool config value `optional-paths` is introduced to the `keylime.conf` file.
When this value is set to `True`, if a file is without a leading POSIX path
then the file is still measured. If the file has a leading POSIX path separator
then the file is measured, as per the current behaviour, where the full path
dictates the comparision of the allowlist value to that recorded by IMA.

### User Stories (optional)

<!--
Detail the things that people will be able to do if this enhancement is implemented.
Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
bogged down.
-->

I have a system that has a file that may be situated in an arbitary location
depending on the deployment. I want to measure this file but I don't want to
have to specify the full path to the file.

#### Story 1

#### Story 2

### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (optional)

<!--
What are the caveats to the proposal?
What are some important details that didn't come across above.
Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
-->

### Risks and Mitigations

<!--
What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly.
For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
enhancement ecosystem.

How will security be reviewed and by whom?
-->

## Design Details

<!--
This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
-->

The `optional-paths` value is added to the `keylime.conf` file. When this value is
set to `True`, the location of a file is ignored if no proceeding POSIX path is
specified. If a proceeding POSIX path is specified, the file is measured as per
the current behaviour.

This will be set as False by default, meaning it is an opt-in feature.

If a file is specified without a file path, alongside a duplicate filename with
a path, the file with the file path will be measured and the file without the
file path will be ignored.

e.g.

`as983o... widget` will be ignored if `as983o... /opt/my_app/widget` is present.

### Test Plan

<!--
**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*

Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:
- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?

No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything
that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly
challenging to test should be called out.

All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
expectations).
-->

### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy

<!--
If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this enhancement
-->

### Dependencie requirements

<!--
If your new change requires new dependencies, please outline and demonstrate that your selected dependency
is well maintained and packaged in Keylime's supported Operating Systems (currently Debian Stable
and as of time writing Fedora 32/33).

During code implementation you will also be expected to add the package to CI , the keylime ansible role and
keylimes main installer (`keylime/installers.sh`).

If the package is not available in the supported Operated systems, the PR will not be merged into master.

Adding the package in `requirements.txt` is not sufficent for master which is where we tag releases from.

You may however be able to work within an experimental branch until a package is made available. If this is
the case, please outline it in this enhancement.

-->

## Drawbacks

<!--
Why should this enhancement _not_ be implemented?
-->

## Alternatives

<!--
What other approaches did you consider and why did you rule them out? These do
not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
-->

## Infrastructure Needed (optional)

<!--
Use this section if you need things infrastructure related specific to your enhancement. Examples include a
new subproject, repos requested, github webhook, changes to CI (travis).
-->