[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190215170144.GH11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:01:44 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
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>,
"Bruno E . O . Meneguele" <bmeneg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:50:18AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Have the IMA architecture specific policy require signed kernel modules
> on systems with secure boot mode enabled; and coordinate the different
> signature verification methods, so only one signature is required.
>
> Requiring appended kernel module signatures may be configured, enabled
> on the boot command line, or with this patch enabled in secure boot
> mode. This patch defines set_module_sig_enforced().
>
> To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA
> signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if
> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled. A custom IMA policy may still define
> and require an IMA signature.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists