From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
Jaskaran Singh Khurana <jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com,
snitzer@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, jmorris@namei.org,
scottsh@microsoft.com, mpatocka@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/1] Add dm verity root hash pkcs7 sig validation.
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:12:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <264565b3-ff3c-29c0-7df0-d8ff061087d3@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190628030017.GA673@sol.localdomain>
On 28/06/2019 05:00, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> Hello Eric,
>>
>> This started with a config (see V4). We didnot want scripts that pass this
>> parameter to suddenly stop working if for some reason the verification is
>> turned off so the optional parameter was just parsed and no validation
>> happened if the CONFIG was turned off. This was changed to a commandline
>> parameter after feedback from the community, so I would prefer to keep it
>> *now* as commandline parameter. Let me know if you are OK with this.
>>
>> Regards,
>> JK
>
> Sorry, I haven't been following the whole discussion. (BTW, you sent out
> multiple versions both called "v4", and using a cover letter for a single patch
> makes it unnecessarily difficult to review.) However, it appears Milan were
> complaining about the DM_VERITY_VERIFY_ROOTHASH_SIG_FORCE option which set the
> policy for signature verification, *not* the DM_VERITY_VERIFY_ROOTHASH_SIG
> option which enabled support for signature verification. Am I missing
> something? You can have a module parameter which controls the "signatures
> required" setting, while also allowing people to compile out kernel support for
> the signature verification feature.
Yes, this was exactly my point.
I think I even mention in some reply to use exactly the same config Makefile logic
as for FEC - to allow completely compile it out of the source:
ifeq ($(CONFIG_DM_VERITY_FEC),y)
dm-verity-objs += dm-verity-fec.o
endif
> Sure, it means that the signature verification support won't be guaranteed to be
> present when dm-verity is. But the same is true of the hash algorithm (e.g.
> sha512), and of the forward error correction feature. Since the signature
> verification is nontrivial and pulls in a lot of other kernel code which might
> not be otherwise needed (via SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION), it seems a natural
> candidate for putting the support behind a Kconfig option.
On the other side, dm-verity is meant for a system verification, so if it depends
on SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION is ... not so surprising :)
But the change above is quite easy and while we already have FEC as config option,
perhaps let's do it the same here.
Milan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-28 5:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-19 19:10 [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] Add dm verity root hash pkcs7 sig validation Jaskaran Khurana
2019-06-19 19:10 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/1] " Jaskaran Khurana
2019-06-25 18:20 ` Mike Snitzer
2019-06-26 5:48 ` Milan Broz
2019-08-13 18:49 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2019-06-27 12:17 ` Milan Broz
2019-06-28 1:52 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2019-06-27 23:41 ` Eric Biggers
2019-06-28 1:49 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2019-06-28 3:00 ` Eric Biggers
2019-06-28 5:12 ` Milan Broz [this message]
2019-06-28 17:03 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2019-06-28 4:00 ` [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] " Eric Biggers
2019-06-28 19:45 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2019-06-28 20:34 ` Eric Biggers
2019-06-28 23:27 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
2019-06-29 4:01 ` James Morris
2019-07-01 9:41 ` Milan Broz
2019-07-01 17:33 ` Jaskaran Singh Khurana
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=264565b3-ff3c-29c0-7df0-d8ff061087d3@gmail.com \
--to=gmazyland@gmail.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=scottsh@microsoft.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).