[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22860730-d615-5683-6af0-05b6f4f3e71d@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 21:31:21 -0500
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"serge@...lyn.com" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"nayna@...ux.ibm.com" <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
"mic@...ux.microsoft.com" <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"keyrings@...r.kernel.org" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KEYS: CA link restriction
On 3/7/22 18:38, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 7, 2022, at 4:01 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 18:06 +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/restrict.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/restrict.c
>>>>> index 6b1ac5f5896a..49bb2ea7f609 100644
>>>>> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/restrict.c
>>>>> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/restrict.c
>>>>> @@ -108,6 +108,49 @@ int restrict_link_by_signature(struct key *dest_keyring,
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * restrict_link_by_ca - Restrict additions to a ring of CA keys
>>>>> + * @dest_keyring: Keyring being linked to.
>>>>> + * @type: The type of key being added.
>>>>> + * @payload: The payload of the new key.
>>>>> + * @trust_keyring: Unused.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Check if the new certificate is a CA. If it is a CA, then mark the new
>>>>> + * certificate as being ok to link.
>>>>
>>>> CA = root CA here, right?
>>>
>>> Yes, I’ll update the comment
>>
>> Updating the comment is not enough. There's an existing function named
>> "x509_check_for_self_signed()" which determines whether the certificate
>> is self-signed.
>
> Originally I tried using that function. However when the restrict link code is called,
> all the necessary x509 information is no longer available. The code in
> restrict_link_by_ca is basically doing the equivalent to x509_check_for_self_signed.
> After verifying the cert has the CA flag set, the call to public_key_verify_signature
> validates the cert is self signed.
>
Isn't x509_cert_parse() being called as part of parsing the certificate?
If so, it seems to check for a self-signed certificate every time. You
could add something like the following to x509_check_for_self_signed(cert):
pub->x509_self_signed = cert->self_signed = true;
This could then reduce the function in 3/4 to something like:
return payload->data[asym_crypto]->x509_self_signed;
Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists