[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZuaVzQqkwwjbUHSh@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:07:41 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] KEYS: Add support for PGP keys and signatures
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 09:11:04AM +0200, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So honestly, just the series adding pgp key verification I have no
> objection to. The use case where some firmware uses pgp to validate
> allowed keys in EFI variables etc sounds like a "ok, then we need to
> parse them".
The use-case for EFI variables appears to be invalid:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXH8nWtAzX+9xc2tLyy5d0w==JNQCMJBAbL=LdcF+XrYkw@mail.gmail.com/
> The objections I had were against the whole "start doing policy in
> kernel", with what sounded like actually parsing and unpacking rpm
> contents and verifying them with a pgp key. *That* still sounds like a
> disaster to me, and is the part that made me go "why isn't that done
> in user space together with then generating the fsverifty
> information"?
If the aformentioned EFI use-case is bogus, then distro package
verification is going to be the only application for PGP keys in
the kernel.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists