From: lijiang <lijiang@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
ebiederm@xmission.com, jmorris@namei.org, mjg59@google.com,
dyoung@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: Do not verify the signature without the lockdown or mandatory signature
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 11:15:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07a65a70-3764-f62f-705c-049b8d409316@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200526135935.ffkfulsjf7xrep63@dwarf.suse.cz>
在 2020年05月26日 21:59, Jiri Bohac 写道:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:23:51PM +0800, Lianbo Jiang wrote:
>> So, here, let's simplify the logic to improve code readability. If the
>> KEXEC_SIG_FORCE enabled or kexec lockdown enabled, signature verification
>> is mandated. Otherwise, we lift the bar for any kernel image.
>
> I agree completely; in fact that was my intention when
> introducing the code, but I got overruled about the return codes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180119125425.l72meyyc2qtrriwe@dwarf.suse.cz/
>
> I like this simplification very much, except this part:
>
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_debug("kernel signature verification failed (%d).\n", ret);
>
> ...
>
>> - pr_notice("kernel signature verification failed (%d).\n", ret);
>
> I think the log level should stay at most PR_NOTICE when the
> verification failure results in rejecting the kernel. Perhaps
> even lower.
>
Thank you for the comment, Jiri Bohac.
I like the idea of staying at most PR_NOTICE, but the pr_notice() will output
some messages that kernel could want to ignore, such as the case you mentioned
below.
> In case verification is not enforced and the failure is
> ignored, KERN_DEBUG seems reasonable.
>
Yes, good understanding. It seems that the pr_debug() is still a good option here?
Any other thoughts?
Thanks.
Lianbo
> Regards,
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-27 3:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-25 5:23 [PATCH] kexec: Do not verify the signature without the lockdown or mandatory signature Lianbo Jiang
2020-05-26 5:04 ` Dave Young
2020-05-26 13:59 ` Jiri Bohac
2020-05-27 3:15 ` lijiang [this message]
2020-05-27 4:08 ` lijiang
2020-05-27 10:16 ` Jiri Bohac
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=07a65a70-3764-f62f-705c-049b8d409316@redhat.com \
--to=lijiang@redhat.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jbohac@suse.cz \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).