linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules

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: <1549369479.4146.142.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:24:39 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules

On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:30 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:05:10PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 12:38 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

> > I don't see a need for an additional LSM just for verifying kernel
> > module signatures.
> 
> But it is one, module signing was just spawned pre the boom of LSMs.
> 
> I do believe that treating the code as such would help with its reading
> and long term maintenance.
> 
> Anyway, I had to try to convince you.

Perhaps, after IMA supports appended signatures (for kernel modules),
I could see making the existing kernel module appended signature
verification an LSM.

For now, other than updating the comment, would you be willing to add
your Review/Ack to this patch?

Mimi