linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] powerpc: expose secure variables to the kernel and userspace

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:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:21:00 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
        Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@...ula.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@...ibm.com>,
        Eric Ricther <erichte@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] powerpc: expose secure variables to the kernel and userspace

Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> writes:
> On 11/10/19 7:10 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>
> Hi Nayna,
>
>> In order to verify the OS kernel on PowerNV systems, secure boot requires
>> X.509 certificates trusted by the platform. These are stored in secure
>> variables controlled by OPAL, called OPAL secure variables. In order to
>> enable users to manage the keys, the secure variables need to be exposed
>> to userspace.
> Are you planning to split the patches in this patch set into smaller 
> chunks so that it is easier to code review and also perhaps make it 
> easier when merging the changes?

I don't think splitting them would add any value. They're already split
into the firmware specific bits (patch 1), and the sysfs parts (patch
2), which is sufficient for me.

cheers