Re: [PATCH] MODSIGN: Change default key details [ver #2]

From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@memnix.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
	keyrings@linux-nfs.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MODSIGN: Change default key details [ver #2]
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 22:14:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1432001692.4510.26.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1431947593.29806.19.camel@infradead.org>

On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 12:13 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 11:47 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> > You could make it so that the make process picks up .pem files and converts
> > them to DER-encoded .x509 files. 
> 
> I don't actually care whether it's PEM or DER form per se. What I
> really care about is the horrid trick of automatically finding the
> files to be included with a wildcard, and pulling them into the build.
> 
> That would be icky enough if we *weren't* going to *trust* the things! 

Agreed!  There's no reason for having them in the root of the build
tree.

> With a PEM file it's common to have multiple certs in a single file,
> and you could have a simple config option for the 'additional certs'
> file which explicitly pulls it in. Rather than the current hack.

> Doing that with multiple certs in the same file in DER form, if that
> works, would also be tolerable. Although it's less normal to have a
> file in that format.

Either method would be preferable.

Mimi