[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180601224617.GU4511@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 00:46:17 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] ima: based on policy require signed firmware
(sysfs fallback)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:39:55PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 20:21 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:01:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in
> > > firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be
> > > calling security_kernel_load_data() instead?
> >
> > That's up to Kees to decide as he added that hook, and knows
> > what LSMs may be doing with it. From my perspective it is confusing
> > to have that hook there so I think it could be removed now.
> >
> > Kees?
>
> Commit 6593d92 ("firmware_class: perform new LSM checks") references
> two methods of loading firmware - filesystem-found firmware and
> demand-loaded blobs. I assume this call in firmware_loading_store()
> is the demand-loaded blobs. Does that method still exist? Is it
> still being used?
Yeah its the stupid sysfs interface. So likely loadpin needs porting
as you IMA as you did.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists