linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] IMA: Use the the system trusted keyrings instead of .ima

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: <29226.1459521213@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 01 Apr 2016 15:33:33 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] IMA: Use the the system trusted keyrings instead of .ima_mok [ver #3]

Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> The only place where  "KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION" is specified is in
> load_system_certificate_list(), when adding keys to
> the .builtin_trusted_keys keyring.  There is no other set of keys
> builtin and added to the IMA keyring.

Are the keys loaded by integrity_load_x509() required to be validly signed by
the builtin/secondary keys?  Or is that unnecessary given that they are loaded
and thus protected through integrity_read_file()?

David