linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] security: Fix IMA Kconfig for dependencies on ARM64

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: <1520896782.3547.245.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:19:42 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Jiandi An <anjiandi@...eaurora.org>, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-ima-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Safford <david.safford@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: Fix IMA Kconfig for dependencies on ARM64

On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 17:05 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 06:58:45PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 15:59 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 05:53:18PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Using Kconfig to force the TPM to be builtin is not required, but
> > > > helpful.  Users interested in IMA-measurement could configure the TPM
> > > > as builtin themselves.  Without the TPM builtin, IMA goes into TPM-
> > > > bypass mode.
> > > 
> > > This issues, broadly speaking, we have lots of TPM drivers, selecting
> > > only some to actually support IMA shows we have some kind of problem
> > > here.
> > 
> > True, IMA is not selecting the older TPM vendor specific modules, but
> > only the newer TPM_TIS and now TPM_CRB modules.  That doesn't imply
> > that IMA only supports some TPMs.  It means that by default, these
> > TPMs are builtin.  Anyone building a kernel, can select the vendor
> > specific TPM to be builtin.
> 
> That doesn't help distros, which is the main point of the complaint
> with this scheme :)

Years ago because of faulty TPM drivers, IMA was disabled in one of
the main distro's.  Deciding which vendor specific TPMs should be
builtin, is a discussion between the distro's and TPM vendors.

Mimi