From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@redhat.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:13:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190205211337.GX11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1549369479.4146.142.camel@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:24:39AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:30 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:05:10PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 12:38 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>
> > > I don't see a need for an additional LSM just for verifying kernel
> > > module signatures.
> >
> > But it is one, module signing was just spawned pre the boom of LSMs.
> >
> > I do believe that treating the code as such would help with its reading
> > and long term maintenance.
> >
> > Anyway, I had to try to convince you.
>
> Perhaps, after IMA supports appended signatures (for kernel modules),
> I could see making the existing kernel module appended signature
> verification an LSM.
I don't see why wait.
> For now, other than updating the comment, would you be willing to add
> your Review/Ack to this patch?
But I don't particularly like the changes, I still believe trying to
LSM'ify kernel module signing would be a better start to help with
long term maintenace on this code.
Also, do we have selftests implemented to ensure we don't regress with
your changes?
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-05 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-31 19:18 [PATCH] ima: requiring signed kernel modules Mimi Zohar
2019-01-31 19:18 ` [PATCH] x86/ima: require " Mimi Zohar
2019-02-04 20:38 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-02-04 22:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-02-04 22:30 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-02-05 12:24 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-02-05 21:13 ` Luis Chamberlain [this message]
2019-02-05 23:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-02-05 15:18 ` Seth Forshee
2019-02-05 16:47 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-02-05 18:32 ` Seth Forshee
2019-02-05 18:52 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-02-08 19:21 ` Seth Forshee
2019-02-10 15:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-02-05 16:10 ` Nayna
2019-02-11 15:56 ` Jessica Yu
2019-02-11 16:19 ` Mimi Zohar
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=20190205211337.GX11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=jforbes@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.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).