From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78640C282CB for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4477320823 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549401222; bh=0pYj1Ss54pSBHM4xfIqstKmNEOARAyWYQBMMGN91avU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=CntvvTtJBaZEFCF7QNMDAwcfFDPz8OxLCcsN/1ViPPs+4Wjxfymz8PzgfCZfMJhAF OETsP5TDqD1Ntor9I65N19vi9itLplJKTZVQPX9E+0TA+KpLVJxeZxCqtNqpkRIHdK 2gjpq0W/0B13qNQzXdtuxXXUvZQH4PbCQqJAZKyg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727122AbfBEVNl (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:13:41 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:38415 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726804AbfBEVNl (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:13:41 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id q1so2072220pfi.5; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:13:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qFPQD0DGcHmEEBGEY8lzMWYsqX5YvqyV7GCO8ulw+Pg=; b=GijfyttG/w8t4vUR5g3hHmpYauPdBMa3M08I13kvwieYsAYR+LD8t71KpjpLBZZZrq c2c00j3vmMSVs5Vut2AiFghelQBDToKVw04rDr4ArXVjTw67dIrwIgjN/70111RYKVLh T4NNlal3saPOph0Q6WmcFt/iqhRm1fgMOicSkhQrxhK9RXoaGf1s40WIhkbfQX+v9BAF ts6fRI5JWaTfw1jykbietkbmnjBgaiwMc24frfK136fgHJfPETKiKmRIOSiNQjqAtqRe 89FQU38FcyWpGgETJuExp2yVUldyC3cHVgimfkb7n73RJxfV8vnpNFctAWsc5DlRfsIW deCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYvg71dJLqggwQz3yvAf6npGKUyhRWz3bJHo3lq96TaeiTEvRdX w48lNqZWzs/695NSFxOltgFzC9Bxm7U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ib5wfeO4XJe9GediGhb2gFPcnRC2yB8zHKbv+u/GwZZCFR0ZvxoUDj/1/A6y0MGcZkhGUw7wA== X-Received: by 2002:a65:488a:: with SMTP id n10mr6489187pgs.261.1549401220646; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:13:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (c-73-71-40-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.71.40.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm5038186pfi.86.2019.02.05.13.13.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:13:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:13:37 -0800 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:13:37 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Mimi Zohar Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu , David Howells , Seth Forshee , Justin Forbes , Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules Message-ID: <20190205211337.GX11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <1548962339-10681-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1548962339-10681-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <20190204203850.GP11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <1549317910.4146.124.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190204223026.GR11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <1549369479.4146.142.camel@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1549369479.4146.142.camel@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:24:39AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:30 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:05:10PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 12:38 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > I don't see a need for an additional LSM just for verifying kernel > > > module signatures. > > > > But it is one, module signing was just spawned pre the boom of LSMs. > > > > I do believe that treating the code as such would help with its reading > > and long term maintenance. > > > > Anyway, I had to try to convince you. > > Perhaps, after IMA supports appended signatures (for kernel modules), > I could see making the existing kernel module appended signature > verification an LSM. I don't see why wait. > For now, other than updating the comment, would you be willing to add > your Review/Ack to this patch? But I don't particularly like the changes, I still believe trying to LSM'ify kernel module signing would be a better start to help with long term maintenace on this code. Also, do we have selftests implemented to ensure we don't regress with your changes? Luis