linux-kernel - Re: Re: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509

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: <1352221.1612429895@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 04 Feb 2021 09:11:35 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com,
        =?utf-8?Q?Micka=C3=ABl_Sala=C3=BCn?= <mic@...ikod.net>,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, masahiroy@...nel.org,
        michal.lkml@...kovi.net, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        lszubowi@...hat.com, javierm@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's
 blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for
 dbx/mokx entries]

Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> > 
> > This looks good to me, and it still works for my use case. Eric's
> > patchset only looks for asymmetric keys in the blacklist keyring, so
> > even if we use the same keyring we don't look for the same key types. My
> > patchset only allows blacklist keys (i.e. hashes, not asymmetric keys)
> > to be added by user space (if authenticated), but because Eric's
> > asymmetric keys are loaded with KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION, it should
> > be OK for his use case.  There should be no interference between the two
> > new features, but I find it a bit confusing to have such distinct use of
> > keys from the same keyring depending on their type.
> 
> I agree, it is a bit confusing.  What is the thought of having a dbx 
> keyring, similar to how the platform keyring works?
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-security-module/msg40262.html

That would be fine by me.

David