[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACE9dm-+CY+aLcsrR8CF2TsL26S1wZbYKYS4ropW3ie6tmMZ+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:42:54 +0300
From: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] initramfs with digital signature protection
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:06:55AM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I respond to the original question of this thread.
>> signed initramfs allows not only to add keys to the keyrings but perform
>> other initialization,
>> which requires user-space.
>> Keys can be embedded into the kernel. This is fine.
>
> What other initialization user space need to do where we can't trust
> root (even in secureboot mode).
>
> IOW, if keys can be embedded in kernel (or read from UEFI db and MOK db),
> what other operation requires initramfs to be signed. It could very well
> be unsigned initramfs like today.
>
It looks like you do not hear me.
I said that any user space initialization can be done from signed user space.
For example IMA policy can be initialized.
I see that you see your particular case and in that case you do not
require that.
That is fine. That is your case....
- Dmitry
> Thanks
> Vivek
--
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