linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/27] Enforce module signatures if the kernel is locked down

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: <3565.1509382834@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:00:34 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        matthew.garrett@...ula.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jforbes@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/27] Enforce module signatures if the kernel is locked down

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

> This kernel_is_locked_down() check is being called for both the
> original and new module_load syscalls.  We need to be able
> differentiate them.  This is fine for the original syscall, but for
> the new syscall we would need an additional IMA check -
> !is_ima_appraise_enabled().

IMA can only be used with finit_module()?

David