linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] MODSIGN: checking the blacklisted hash before loading a kernel module

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: <1520961515.5360.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:18:35 -0700
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-fs@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] MODSIGN: checking the blacklisted hash before
 loading a kernel module

On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 18:38 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> This patch adds the logic for checking the kernel module's hash
> base on blacklist. The hash must be generated by sha256 and enrolled
> to dbx/mokx.
> 
> For example:
> 	sha256sum sample.ko
> 	mokutil --mokx --import-hash $HASH_RESULT
> 
> Whether the signature on ko file is stripped or not, the hash can be
> compared by kernel.

What's the use case for this?  We're already in trouble from the ODMs
for the size of dbx and its consumption of the extremely limited
variable space, so do we really have a use case for adding module
blacklist hashes to the UEFI variables given the space constraints (as
in one we can't do any other way)?

James