[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1509661123.3416.29.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 18:18:43 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: 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
On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 22:01 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Right, it would never get here if the IMA signature verification
> > fails. If sig_enforce is not enabled, then it will also work. So the
> > only case is if sig_enforced is enabled and there is no key.
> >
> > eg.
> > else if (can_do_ima_check && is_ima_appraise_enabled())
> > err = 0;
>
> I'm not sure where you want to put that, but I can't just do this:
>
> /* Not having a signature is only an error if we're strict. */
> if (err == -ENOKEY && !sig_enforce &&
> (!can_do_ima_check || !is_ima_appraise_enabled()) &&
The above IMA checks aren't needed here.
> !kernel_is_locked_down("Loading of unsigned modules"))
> err = 0;
> else if (can_do_ima_check && is_ima_appraise_enabled())
> err = 0;
>
> because that'll print out a message in lockdown mode saying that you're not
> allowed to do that and then maybe do it anyway.
Then at least for now, document that even though kernel modules might
be signed and verified by IMA-appraisal, that in lockdown mode they
also require an appended signature.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists