From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ima: Support appended signatures for appraisal Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:41:35 -0300 Message-ID: <1565385.DQpqeaisNG@morokweng> References: <201704201148.IPsFhl4B%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <35565259.p7kmk0rNRg@morokweng> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@01.org, LSM , linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, keyrings , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, kernel , Mimi Zohar , Dmitry Kasatkin , David Howells , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Claudio Carvalho To: Mehmet Kayaalp Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 18:18:34 BRT schrieb Mehmet Kayaalp: > > On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:41 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann > > wrote: > > > > This patch introduces the appended_imasig keyword to the IMA policy syntax > > to specify that a given hook should expect the file to have the IMA > > signature appended to it. Here is how it can be used in a rule: > > > > appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=appended_imasig > > appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=appended_imasig|imasig > > > > In the second form, IMA will accept either an appended signature or a > > signature stored in the extended attribute. In that case, it will first > > check whether there is an appended signature, and if not it will read it > > from the extended attribute. > > > > The format of the appended signature is the same used for signed kernel > > modules. This means that the file can be signed with the scripts/sign-file > > > tool, with a command line such as this: > I would suggest naming the appraise_type as modsig (or some variant) to > clarify that the format is defined by how module signatures are handled. > Maybe we'd like to define a different appended/inline signature format for > IMA in the future. I like the suggestion. Would that mean that we will keep refering to it as "module signature format", and thus nothing changes in patch 5? -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:41:35 -0300 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] ima: Support appended signatures for appraisal In-Reply-To: References: <201704201148.IPsFhl4B%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <35565259.p7kmk0rNRg@morokweng> Message-ID: <1565385.DQpqeaisNG@morokweng> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 18:18:34 BRT schrieb Mehmet Kayaalp: > > On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:41 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann > > wrote: > > > > This patch introduces the appended_imasig keyword to the IMA policy syntax > > to specify that a given hook should expect the file to have the IMA > > signature appended to it. Here is how it can be used in a rule: > > > > appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=appended_imasig > > appraise func=KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK appraise_type=appended_imasig|imasig > > > > In the second form, IMA will accept either an appended signature or a > > signature stored in the extended attribute. In that case, it will first > > check whether there is an appended signature, and if not it will read it > > from the extended attribute. > > > > The format of the appended signature is the same used for signed kernel > > modules. This means that the file can be signed with the scripts/sign-file > > > tool, with a command line such as this: > I would suggest naming the appraise_type as modsig (or some variant) to > clarify that the format is defined by how module signatures are handled. > Maybe we'd like to define a different appended/inline signature format for > IMA in the future. I like the suggestion. Would that mean that we will keep refering to it as "module signature format", and thus nothing changes in patch 5? -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html