All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] IMA: Use the the system trusted keyrings instead of .ima_mok [ver #3]
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:18:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <13142.1459437486@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459426888.2657.26.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > The third option I've added is that you can't add to .ima at all.  You only
> > get what's included at build time.  You don't want that option?
> 
> Adding keys directly to the IMA keyring is a new feature.  There's enough
> changes as it is, that this patch should be limited to replicating existing
> usage, not adding new features.

The three choice options I implemented don't exactly provide new features.
Firstly:

	config IMA_LOAD_X509

allow keys to be loaded in at compile time, secondly,

	config INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE

allows keys to be inserted whilst the kernel is running if those keys are
"trusted", and, thirdly,

	config IMA_MOK_KEYRING

modifies what it means for a key to be "trusted" by allowing intermediate
levels of CA certificates to be chained.


So, of the three choice options I'm providing,

	config IMA_KEYRINGS_ADD_IF_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN

is equivalent to setting INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE plus IMA_LOAD_X509 if you set it;
then

	config IMA_KEYRINGS_ADD_IF_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY

is the equivalent of turning on IMA_MOK_KEYRING as well.

Fair enough, you can argue that:

	config IMA_KEYRINGS_COMPILE_LOAD_ONLY

allowing you to disable addition of keys whilst the kernel is running is a
'new feature'.  I disagree, I think it should be there for completeness.

> > > > +config IMA_KEYRINGS_COMPILE_LOAD_ONLY
> > > > +	bool "No runtime key addition"
> > > ...
> > > This could be useful for namespacing IMA. 
> > 
> > You said you didn't want this option above (to quote: In this patch, the
> > choice should be between checking just the builtin trusted keys or both the
> > builtin trusted and secondary keys.)
> 
> Does the ability of adding builtin X.509 certificates directly to the
> IMA keyring already exist or is it something that still needs to be
> done?   Assuming the latter, this option would be added with the ability
> of adding X.509 certificates directly to the IMA keyring.

I don't know what you mean by "directly" here.  Even without this patch, you
can already add X.509 certs to the .ima keyring, both at compile time and at
runtime.  This patch doesn't take that away - except by explicitly setting the
option to prevent runtime addition.

David

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-03-31 15:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-09 11:18 [RFC PATCH 00/12] KEYS: Restrict additions to 'trusted' keyrings [ver #3] David Howells
2016-03-09 11:18 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12] KEYS: Generalise system_verify_data() to provide access to internal content " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:18 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12] PKCS#7: Make trust determination dependent on contents of trust keyring " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:18 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12] KEYS: Add a facility to restrict new links into a " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:18 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12] KEYS: Move x509_request_asymmetric_key() to asymmetric_type.c " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:18 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12] KEYS: Generalise x509_request_asymmetric_key() " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:18 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12] X.509: Use verify_signature() if we have a struct key * to use " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:19 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12] X.509: Move the trust validation code out to its own file " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:19 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12] KEYS: Make the system trusted keyring depend on the asymmetric key type " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:19 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12] KEYS: Move the point of trust determination to __key_link() " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:19 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12] KEYS: Remove KEY_FLAG_TRUSTED and KEY_ALLOC_TRUSTED " David Howells
2016-03-09 11:19 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] certs: Add a secondary system keyring that can be added to dynamically " David Howells
2016-04-06  0:37   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-04-06 16:12   ` David Howells
2016-03-09 11:19 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12] IMA: Use the the system trusted keyrings instead of .ima_mok " David Howells
2016-03-28 11:59   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-03-30 16:19   ` David Howells
2016-03-31 12:21     ` Mimi Zohar
2016-03-31 15:18     ` David Howells [this message]
2016-03-31 15:55       ` Mimi Zohar
2016-03-31 22:18         ` Mimi Zohar
2016-04-01 14:33         ` David Howells
2016-04-01 16:49           ` Mimi Zohar
2016-04-01 14:06     ` David Howells
2016-04-01 17:07       ` Mimi Zohar
2016-04-05 20:48   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-04-06 16:13   ` David Howells
2016-04-06 16:47     ` 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=13142.1459437486@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.