linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V37 04/29] Enforce module signatures if the kernel is locked down

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: <CACdnJusD_9W9tFqwKptDTA8fZU8HrSvsEQhKo0WS9QxLpgz5tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:42:31 -0700
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V37 04/29] Enforce module signatures if the kernel is
 locked down

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:22 AM Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org> wrote:
> Apologies if this was addressed in another patch in your series (I've
> only skimmed the first few), but what should happen if the kernel is
> locked down, but CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=n? Or shouldn't CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM
> depend on CONFIG_MODULE_SIG? Otherwise I think we'll end up calling
> the empty !CONFIG_MODULE_SIG module_sig_check() stub even though
> lockdown is enabled.

Hm. Someone could certainly configure their kernel in that way. I'm
not sure that tying CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM to CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
is the right solution, since the new LSM approach means that any other
LSM could also impose the same policy. Perhaps we should just document
this?