linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 10/12] KEYS: link system_trusted_keys to mok_trusted

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: <21CB8F51-9066-4095-9C6E-428FF9E86443@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 09:00:20 -0600
From:   Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, keescook@...omium.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        scott.branden@...adcom.com, weiyongjun1@...wei.com,
        nayna@...ux.ibm.com, ebiggers@...gle.com, ardb@...nel.org,
        Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        lszubowi@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, pjones@...hat.com,
        glin@...e.com, "konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 10/12] KEYS: link system_trusted_keys to
 mok_trusted_keys


> On Aug 5, 2021, at 9:19 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 19:29 -0600, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> 
>>> From the thread discussion on 00/12:
>>> 
>>> Only the builtin keys should ever be on the builtin keyring.  The
>>> builtin keyring would need to be linked to the mok keyring.  But in the
>>> secondary keyring case, the mok keyring would be linked to the
>>> secondary keyring, similar to how the builtin keyring is linked to the
>>> secondary keyring.
>>> 
>>>       if (key_link(secondary_trusted_keys, builtin_trusted_keys) < 0)
>>>               panic("Can't link trusted keyrings\n");
>> 
>> 
>> This part is confusing me though.
>> 
>> Here are some of the tests I’m performing with the current series:
>> 
>> Initial setup:
>> Create and enroll my own key into the MOK.
>> Sign a kernel, kernel module and IMA key with my new CA key.
>> Boot with lockdown enabled (to enforce sig validation).
>> 
>> Kernel built with CONFIG_SECONDARY_TRUSTED_KEYRING=y
>> 
>> $ keyctl show %:.secondary_trusted_keys
>> Keyring
>> 530463486 ---lswrv      0     0  keyring: .secondary_trusted_keys
>> 411466727 ---lswrv      0     0   \_ keyring: .builtin_trusted_keys
>> 979167715 ---lswrv      0     0   |   \_ asymmetric: Build time autogenerated kernel key: 07a56e29cfa1e21379aff2c522efff7d1963202a
>> 534573591 ---lswrv      0     0   |   \_ asymmetric: Oracle-CA: Oracle certificate signing key: aeefb4bfde095cacaabff81dd266974b1b4e23b8
>> 968109018 ---lswrv      0     0   \_ keyring: .mok
>> 857795115 ---lswrv      0     0       \_ asymmetric: Erics-CA: UEK signing key: 9bfa6860483aa46bd83f7fa1289d9fc35799e93b
>> 
>> With this setup I can:
>> * load a kernel module signed with my CA key
>> * run "kexec -ls" with the kernel signed with my CA key
>> * run "kexec -ls" with a kernel signed by a key in the platform keyring
>> * load another key into the secondary trusted keyring that is signed by my CA key
>> * load a key into the ima keyring, signed by my CA key
>> 
>> Kernel built without CONFIG_SECONDARY_TRUSTED_KEYRING defined
>> 
>> $ keyctl show %:.builtin_trusted_keys
>> Keyring
>> 812785375 ---lswrv      0     0  keyring: .builtin_trusted_keys
>> 455418681 ---lswrv      0     0   \_ keyring: .mok
>> 910809006 ---lswrv      0     0   |   \_ asymmetric: Erics-CA: UEK signing key: 9bfa6860483aa46bd83f7fa1289d9fc35799e93b
>> 115345009 ---lswrv      0     0   \_ asymmetric: Oracle-CA: Oracle certificate signing key: aeefb4bfde095cacaabff81dd266974b1b4e23b8
>> 513131506 ---lswrv      0     0   \_ asymmetric: Build time autogenerated kernel key: 22353509f203b55b84f15d0aadeddc134b646185
>> 
>> With this setup I can:
>> * load a kernel module signed with my CA key
>> * run "kexec -ls" with the kernel signed with my CA key
>> * run "kexec -ls" with a kernel signed by a key in the platform keyring
>> * load a key into the ima keyring, signed by my CA key
>> 
>> So why would the linking need to be switched?  Is there a test I’m
>> missing?  Thanks.
> 
> It's a question of semantics.  The builtin keyring name is self
> describing.  It should only contain the keys compiled into the kernel
> or inserted post build into the reserved memory.  Not only the kernel
> uses the builtin keyring, but userspace may as well[1].  Other users of
> the builtin keyring might not want to trust the mok keyring as well.

Should this feature only work with kernels built with 
CONFIG_SECONDARY_TRUSTED_KEYRING defined?  If so, I could drop support in 
the next version for kernels built without it.