From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45E7294D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:58:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004C915F for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:58:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:58:44 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Jason Cooper Message-ID: <20160727145843.GF17195@leverpostej> References: <20150804152622.GY30479@wotan.suse.de> <1468612258.5335.0.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1468612671.5335.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160716005213.GL30372@sirena.org.uk> <1469544138.120686.327.camel@infradead.org> <20160727140406.GP4541@io.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160727140406.GP4541@io.lakedaemon.net> Cc: Mark Brown , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Signature management - keys, modules, firmware, was: Last minute nominations: mcgrof and toshi List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:04:06PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:42:18PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-07-16 at 01:52 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:57:51PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > Oops, "Signature management - keys, modules, firmware" was a > > > > suggestion from last year, but in my opinion still very apropos. > > > > > > Yup, definitely - especially with secure boot starting to firm up on > > > the ARM side there's a bunch more interest in it from more embedded > > > applications. > > > > Are we going to propose this again "formally" (i.e. sufficiently > > clearly that the committee take note and consider it)? > > $subject modified. > > > If so, I would also be keen to participate. > > Myself as well. I've often wondered about devicetree signing. Since it > needs to be modified by the bootloader in a lot of cases (RAM size, > cmdline, etc), but a malicious modification would be to remove the TPM > node. :-) I'd be interested in these discussions. Mark.