[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <576B25FF.1010307@gmail.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists