[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1578545543.5147.32.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 23:52:23 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, arnd@...db.de,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, sashal@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] IMA: fix measuring asymmetric keys Kconfig
On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 08:05 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE is a tristate. If this config
> is set to "=m", ima_asymmetric_keys.c is built as a kernel module.
>
> Defined an intermediate boolean config namely
> CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS that is
> defined when CONFIG_IMA and CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE
> are defined.
>
> Asymmetric key structure is defined only when
> CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE is defined. Since the IMA hook
> measures asymmetric keys, the IMA hook is defined in
> ima_asymmetric_keys.c which is built only if
> CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS is defined.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
For the time being, I've pushed out this patch with the existing patch
description to next-integrity-testing, but the patch description
should be rewritten clearer. For example,
As a result of the asymmetric public keys subtype being defined as a
tristate, with the existing IMA Makefile, ima_asymmetric_keys.c could
be built as a kernel module. To prevent this from happening, this
patch defines and uses an intermediate Kconfig boolean option named
IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS.
Please let me know if you're ok with this wording.
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists