linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ima: Implement support for uncompressed module appended signatures

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: <9347B826-F924-4625-89CF-713303D8336D@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:30:45 -0700
From:   Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     zohar@...ux.ibm.com, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, 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 Feb 6, 2020, at 10:07 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

I’m open to changing INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL to INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY if that seems more appropriate.