linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 01/13] certs: Remove CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM

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: <0935469D-35BF-4AB6-BDC5-C54D90368092@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:50:09 +0000
From: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
CC: "open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel
	<ardb@...nel.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        James Morris
	<jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Mimi Zohar
	<zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        Dmitry
 Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün
	<mic@...ikod.net>,
        "casey@...aufler-ca.com" <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Stefan
 Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "ebiggers@...nel.org" <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        open list
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "keyrings@...r.kernel.org"
	<keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 01/13] certs: Remove
 CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING check


> On Oct 17, 2024, at 10:13 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:55 -0600, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>> Remove the CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING ifdef check so this
>> pattern does not need to be repeated with new code.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>  certs/system_keyring.c | 6 ------
>>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
>> index 9de610bf1f4b..e344cee10d28 100644
>> --- a/certs/system_keyring.c
>> +++ b/certs/system_keyring.c
>> @@ -24,9 +24,7 @@ static struct key *secondary_trusted_keys;
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_MACHINE_KEYRING
>>  static struct key *machine_trusted_keys;
>>  #endif
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING
>>  static struct key *platform_trusted_keys;
>> -#endif
>>  
>>  extern __initconst const u8 system_certificate_list[];
>>  extern __initconst const unsigned long system_certificate_list_size;
>> @@ -345,11 +343,7 @@ int verify_pkcs7_message_sig(const void *data,
>> size_t len,
>>   trusted_keys = builtin_trusted_keys;
>>  #endif
>>   } else if (trusted_keys == VERIFY_USE_PLATFORM_KEYRING) {
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING
>>   trusted_keys = platform_trusted_keys;
>> -#else
>> - trusted_keys = NULL;
>> -#endif
>>   if (!trusted_keys) {
>>   ret = -ENOKEY;
>>   pr_devel("PKCS#7 platform keyring is not
>> available\n");
> 
> Just to check with the argument that any commit should bring the Git
> tree to another "good state". Why this was flagged? What would be the
> collateral damage if only this commit was picked and put to a pull
> request? No intentions to do that, this more like forming a better
> understanding what is at stake here.
> 
> I.e. I get that you need this for subsequent commits but I think the
> commit message should also have like explanation why this is a legit
> change otherwise.

Thanks for taking a look at this, I will add a better explanation in the
next round.