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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <12321.1509658211@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 02 Nov 2017 21:30:11 +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:

> By this point, IMA-appraisal has already verified the kernel module
> signature back in kernel_read_file_from_fd(), if it was required.
>  Having a key with which to verify the appended signature or requiring
> an appended signature, should not be required as well.

I guess I don't need to put in any support for IMA here, then, and you've
taken care of it in your patchset such that it won't actually go into
module_sig_check() in that case (or will at least return immediately).

David