[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906101624350.31134@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.inter>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jaskaran Singh Khurana <jaskarankhurana@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, jmorris@...ei.org, scottsh@...rosoft.com,
ebiggers@...gle.com, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/1] Add dm verity root hash pkcs7 sig
validation
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 08/06/2019 00:31, Jaskaran Khurana wrote:
>> The verification is to support cases where the roothash is not secured by
>
>> + key = request_key(&key_type_user,
>> + key_desc, NULL);
>> + if (IS_ERR(key))
>> + return PTR_ERR(key);
>
> You will need dependence on keyring here (kernel can be configured without it),
> try to compile it without CONFIG_KEYS selected.
>
> I think it is ok that DM_VERITY_VERIFY_ROOTHASH_SIG can directly require CONFIG_KEYS.
> (Add depends on CONFIG_KEYS in KConfig)
>
DM_VERITY_VERIFY_ROOTHASH_SIG selects SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION and
SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION selects KEYS so we should be OK here.
>
> Thanks,
> Milan
>
Thanks,
Jaskaran.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists