linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK

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: <91B1FE51-C6FC-4ADF-B05A-B1E59E20132E@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:23:20 -0600
From:   Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        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 <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        pjones@...hat.com,
        "konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Patrick Uiterwijk <patrick@...terwijk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK


> On Aug 19, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 14:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 20:20 -0400, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>> Downstream Linux distros try to have a single signed kernel for each
>>> architecture.  Each end-user may use this kernel in entirely different
>>> ways.  Some downstream kernels have chosen to always trust platform keys
>>> within the Linux trust boundary for kernel module signing.  These
>>> kernels have no way of using digital signature base IMA appraisal.
>>> 
>>> This series introduces a new Linux kernel keyring containing the Machine
>>> Owner Keys (MOK) called .mok. It also adds a new MOK variable to shim.
>> 
>> I would name it as ".machine" because it is more "re-usable" name, e.g.
>> could be used for similar things as MOK. ".mok" is a bad name because
>> it binds directly to a single piece of user space software.
> 
> Nayna previously said,
>   "I believe the underlying source from where CA keys are loaded might vary 
>   based on the architecture (".mok" is UEFI specific.). The key part is 
>   that this new keyring should contain only CA keys which can be later 
>   used to vouch for user keys loaded onto IMA or secondary keyring at 
>   runtime. It would be good to have a "ca" in the name, like .xxxx-ca, 
>   where xxxx can be machine, owner, or system. I prefer .system-ca."
> 
> The CA keys on the MOK db is simply the first root of trust being
> defined, but other roots of trust are sure to follow.  For this reason,
> I agree naming the new keyring "mok" should be avoided.

As I said previously, I’m open to renaming, I just would like to have an 
agreement on the new name before changing everything.  The current proposed 
names I have heard are “.machine" and ".system-ca".  Is there a preference 
the maintainers feel is appropriate?  If so, please let me know and I’ll 
rename it. Thanks.