linux-kernel - Re: [PULL REQUEST] Lock down patches

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:44:14 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc:     jmorris@...ei.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Lock down patches

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 17:01 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> > That's not a valid reason for preventing systems that do use IMA for
> > verifying the kexec kernel image signature or kernel module signatures
> > from enabling "lock down".  This just means that there needs to be
> > some coordination between the different signature verification
> > methods. [1][2]
> 
> I agree, but the current form of the integration makes it impossible
> for anyone using an IMA-enabled kernel (but not using IMA) to do
> anything unless they have IMA signatures. It's a problem we need to
> solve, I just don't think it's a problem we need to solve before
> merging the patchset.

That's simply not true.  Have you even looked at the IMA architecture
patches?

fcf338449af5 x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
d958083a8f64 x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86

Mimi