Message-ID: <CA+5PVA6UKvmAb+r2PPtKdDhz5CAWkGihfMS=1nwiO4XpBGrD=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:31:48 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
Cc:	zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 7/7] modsig: build rules and scripts to generate keys and
 sign modules

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Kasatkin, Dmitry
<dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com> wrote:
>>> 1. signed_modules_install
>>> This target creates an ephemeral key pair, signs the kernel modules with
>>> the private key, destroys the private key, and embeds the public key in
>>> the kernel. (Thanks to Dave Hansen for the target name.)
>>
>> This requires CONFIG_INTEGRITY_MODULES to be enabled to actually do
>> anything useful with the signed modules, correct?
>>
>
> Correct. It does not make sense to sign module if module support is disabled.
> But there scripts/genkey.sh and ksign.sh which works without Makefiles.
> So possible to generate keys and sign a module...

Right, but it won't actually do anything if the config option isn't set.
Which means someone calling 'make signed_modules_install' won't actually
get signed modules.  That's confusing.

>>> 2. modules_install
>>> When CONFIG_INTEGRITY_MODULES is enabled, this target uses an existing
>>> private key to sign kernel modules.
>>
>> If the answer to the above question is yes, then why can't we stick
>> with a single modules_install command for signing?  It would seem to me
>> that calling signed_modules_install could use an existing key or
>> generate an ephemeral key in the absence of one and install the signed
>> modules, and modules_install would simply install unsigned modules.
>>
>> Or, alternatively, just make modules_install sign or not sign depending
>> on whether CONFIG_INTEGRITY_MODULES is enabled.
>
> This is what "make modules_install" does. It uses existing private key
> and does not remove it after install.

Right.  I should have been more clear.  I was suggesting that "make
modules_install" generate a key as well if one does not already exist.
Essentially removing the necessity for sign_modules_install.

>>  I don't see why you
>> would overload a target or create two different ones when both depend
>> on that option.
>>
>> Could you explain the reasoning behind that a bit more?
>
> The reason for "signed_modules_install" is to limit existence of private key.
> Private key is generate just before install, modules installed and
> signed, then key is destroyed.
> So existence of private key is limited to "time make
> signed_modules_install" execution time.
>
> We had a debate about it, and strong message was that we might want to
> do it like that...

I guess I personally don't see the need to destroy they key so quickly.
Is the concern that an intruder might grab the key and use it to sign a
module that the developer would then later on somehow load?  Or
similarly someone would grab a temporary key from a distro build
machine?  That limits the attack surface, sure, but I'm not sure it's
really reasonable.

For a developer that isn't distributing kernels to others, it's just
adding more time to the compile (which I know can be disabled, but
still).  For a distribution, most of them are either using a private
key already or they have a buildsystem that destroys a buildroot after
a build completes.  The key is already going to be destroyed in that
scenario.

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists