linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring

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]

Message-ID: <20160113180129.GA7826@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:01:29 +0200
From:	Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mdb@...iper.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against
 IMA MOK keyring

On 16-01-13 12:51:36, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 18:31 +0200, Petko Manolov wrote:
> > 
> > I am not opposed to everything what you suggest.  Since we did that work in 
> > parallel (your stuff and the IMA keyring additions) with no communication 
> > between us, we ended up with broken IMA model.  I see three possibilities:
> > 
> >   - dump the IMA changes for this release (not happy about it);
> > 
> >   - try to quickly adapt the IMA system to your changes (not sure if it can be 
> >     done easily and/or quickly) and do it properly for 4.6;
> > 
> >   - elevate .ima_mok/blacklist to system wide RW keyrings (we may miss the merge 
> >     window);
> 
> I beg to differ.  The IMA model is not broken with the current patches being 
> upstreamed.  The basic concepts developed will continue to be used, perhaps 
> not directly by IMA.
> 
> David's proposal is a major redesign of keyrings and the system keyring in 
> particular.  It looks promising, but will need to be reviewed.

Due to time limitations i was not able to study David's changes in detail.  I 
only commented on what (i thought) i understood. :)

I assume a wider discussion will clean out the details.


		Petko