[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fda8b3e4-e3aa-a83a-0ddc-8ec096e67316@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 09:07:28 -0800
From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, nayna@...ux.ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, bauerman@...ux.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ima: Implement support for uncompressed module
appended signatures
On 2/6/2020 8:42 AM, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>
> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ static const char * const keyring_name[INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX] = {
> ".ima",
> #endif
> ".platform",
> + ".builtin_trusted_keys",
> };
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_KEYRINGS_PERMIT_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY
> @@ -45,8 +47,11 @@ static struct key *integrity_keyring_from_id(const unsigned int id)
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> if (!keyring[id]) {
> - keyring[id] =
> - request_key(&key_type_keyring, keyring_name[id], NULL);
> + if (id == INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL)
> + keyring[id] = VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING;
Since "Built-In Trusted Keyring" or "Secondary Trusted Keyring" is used,
would it be more appropriate to name this identifier
INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY?
> diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> index 73fc286834d7..63f0e6bff0e0 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> @@ -145,7 +145,8 @@ int integrity_kernel_read(struct file *file, loff_t offset,
> #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_EVM 0
> #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA 1
> #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_PLATFORM 2
> -#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX 3
> +#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL 3
> +#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX 4
-lakshmi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists