linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V40 04/29] lockdown: 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: <3638.1567182673@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:31:13 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V40 04/29] lockdown: Enforce module signatures if the kernel is locked down

Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com> wrote:

>  enum lockdown_reason {
>  	LOCKDOWN_NONE,
> +	LOCKDOWN_MODULE_SIGNATURE,
>  	LOCKDOWN_INTEGRITY_MAX,
>  	LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX,
>  };

Aren't you mixing disjoint sets?

> +	[LOCKDOWN_MODULE_SIGNATURE] = "unsigned module loading",

Wouldn't it be better to pass this string as a parameter to
security_locked_down()?

David