From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753441AbdKMTIx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:08:53 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50544 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751845AbdKMTIu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:08:50 -0500
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:08:48 +0100
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de>, Gary Lin <GLin@suse.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@kernel.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel
 lockdown
Message-ID: <20171113190848.GD22894@wotan.suse.de>
References: <150842463163.7923.11081723749106843698.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <14219.1509660259@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1509660641.3416.24.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171107230700.GJ22894@wotan.suse.de>
 <20171108061551.GD7859@linaro.org>
 <20171108194626.GQ22894@wotan.suse.de>
 <20171109014841.GF7859@linaro.org>
 <20171110014641.GO22894@wotan.suse.de>
 <1510321506.3359.42.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171113185035.GB22894@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171113185035.GB22894@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 08:45:06AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> It does not mean we don't have to support hashes from the start, we can,
> however that could require a driver change where its hash is specified or
> preferred, for instance.

Actually the pseudo code I just demo'd on your RFC proposal shows how we
could support the hashes for firmware an optional first policy and if that
fails check the fw signature if present. So no driver changes would be
needed other than key'ing a respective hash for the firmware, which can
just be a macro driver addition, not an API call change.

  Luis