From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal =?unknown-8bit?q?Such=C3=A1nek?= Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 19:11:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v8 4/4] kexec, KEYS, s390: Make use of built-in and secondary keyring for signature verification In-Reply-To: References: <20220512070123.29486-1-coxu@redhat.com> <20220512070123.29486-5-coxu@redhat.com> <20220519003902.GE156677@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> Message-ID: <20220519171134.GN163591@kunlun.suse.cz> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kexec@lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:22:15PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 05/19/22 at 07:56am, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > [Cc'ing Jarkko, linux-integrity] > > > > On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 08:39 +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > > On 05/18/22 at 01:29pm, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 03:01:23PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > > > > > From: Michal Suchanek > > > > > > > > > > commit e23a8020ce4e ("s390/kexec_file: Signature verification prototype") > > > > > adds support for KEXEC_SIG verification with keys from platform keyring > > > > > but the built-in keys and secondary keyring are not used. > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the built-in keys and secondary keyring as x86 does. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: e23a8020ce4e ("s390/kexec_file: Signature verification prototype") > > > > > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org > > > > > Cc: Philipp Rudo > > > > > Cc: kexec at lists.infradead.org > > > > > Cc: keyrings at vger.kernel.org > > > > > Cc: linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek > > > > > Reviewed-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" > > > > > Acked-by: Baoquan He > > > > > Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- > > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell this doesn't have any dependency to the other > > > > patches in this series, so should I pick this up for the s390 tree, or > > > > how will this go upstream? > > > > > > Thanks, Heiko. > > > > > > I want to ask Mimi if this can be taken into KEYS-ENCRYPTED tree. > > > Otherwise I will ask Andrew to help pick this whole series. > > > > > > Surely, this patch 4 can be taken into s390 seperately since it's > > > independent, both looks good. > > > > KEYS-ENCRYTPED is a type of key, unrelated to using the .platform, > > .builtin, .machine, or .secondary keyrings. One of the main reasons > > for this patch set is to use the new ".machine" keyring, which, if > > enabled, is linked to the "secondary" keyring. However, the only > > reference to the ".machine" keyring is in the cover letter, not any of > > the patch descriptions. Since this is the basis for the system's > > integrity, this seems like a pretty big omission. > > > > From patch 2/4: > > "The code in bzImage64_verify_sig makes use of system keyrings > > including > > .buitin_trusted_keys, .secondary_trusted_keys and .platform keyring to > > verify signed kernel image as PE file..." > > > > From patch 3/4: > > "This patch allows to verify arm64 kernel image signature using not > > only > > .builtin_trusted_keys but also .platform and .secondary_trusted_keys > > keyring." > > > > From patch 4/4: > > "... with keys from platform keyring but the built-in keys and > > secondary keyring are not used." > > > > This patch set could probably go through KEYS/KEYRINGS_INTEGRITY, but > > it's kind of late to be asking. Has it been in linux-next? Should I > > assume this patch set has been fully tested or can we get some "tags"? > > Right, it should be KEYS/KEYRINGS_INTEGRITY related, I made mistaken. > Now it got two ACKs from Michal and me. Michal met the same issue on > arm64 and posted another series of patches, finally Coiby integrated > Michal's patch and his to make this patchset. That would be great if > this can get reviewing from experts on key/keyring. Surely, Coiby need > update the patch log to add the '.machine' keyring into patch logs as > you pointed out. > > IIRC, Coiby has tested it on x86_64/arm64, not sure if he took test on > s390. No, this hasn't been in linux-next. I used the s390 code on powerpc and there it did not work because the built-in key was needed to verify the kernel. I did not really run this on s390, only ported the fix I needed on powerpc back to s390. Thanks Michal