linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] kexec_file_load implementation for PowerPC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:57:51 +1000
From:	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To:	Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] kexec_file_load implementation for PowerPC



On 23/06/16 03:02, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Hello Balbir,
>
Hi Thiago
 
>>> 3. have IMA pass-on its event log (where integrity measurements are
>>>
>>>    registered) accross kexec to the second kernel, so that the event
>>>    history is preserved.
>>
>> OK.. and this is safe? Do both the kernels need to be signed by the
>> same certificate?
> 
> They don't. The integrity of the event log (assuming that is what you mean 
> by "this" in "this is safe") is guaranteed by the TPM device. Each event in 
> the measurement list extends a PCR and records its PCR value. It is 
> cryptographically guaranteed that if you replay the PCR extends recorded in 
> the event log and in the end of the process they match the current PCR 
> values in the TPM device, then that event log is correct.


What I meant was how does the new kernel know that the old kernel did not
cheat while passing on the values? I presume because we trust that kernel
via a signature.


and

How do we know the new kernel is safe to load - I guess via a signature that
the new kernel is signed with (assuming it is present in the key ring).

Balbir Singh