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: <9526a4e0be9579a9e52064dd590a78c6496ee025.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:34:09 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>,
        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


> >> Jarkko, I think the emphasis should not be on "machine" from Machine
> >> Owner Key (MOK), but on "owner".  Whereas Nayna is focusing more on the
> >> "_ca" aspect of the name.   Perhaps consider naming it
> >> "system_owner_ca" or something along those lines.

> > What do you gain such overly long identifier? Makes no sense. What
> > is "ca aspect of the name" anyway?
> 
> As I mentioned previously, the main usage of this new keyring is that it 
> should contain only CA keys which can be later used to vouch for user 
> keys loaded onto secondary or IMA keyring at runtime. Having ca in the 
> name like .xxxx_ca, would make the keyring name self-describing. Since 
> you preferred .system, we can call it .system_ca.

Sounds good to me.  Jarkko?

thanks,

Mimi