From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751258AbeFAWqV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:46:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57371 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbeFAWqT (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:46:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 00:46:17 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Mimi Zohar Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Eric Biederman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ard Biesheuvel , Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] ima: based on policy require signed firmware (sysfs fallback) Message-ID: <20180601224617.GU4511@wotan.suse.de> References: <1527616920-5415-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1527616920-5415-6-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180601182107.GO4511@wotan.suse.de> <1527892795.13403.26.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1527892795.13403.26.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:39:55PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 20:21 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:01:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Luis, is the security_kernel_post_read_file LSM hook in > > > firmware_loading_store() still needed after this patch? Should it be > > > calling security_kernel_load_data() instead? > > > > That's up to Kees to decide as he added that hook, and knows > > what LSMs may be doing with it. From my perspective it is confusing > > to have that hook there so I think it could be removed now. > > > > Kees? > > Commit 6593d92 ("firmware_class: perform new LSM checks") references > two methods of loading firmware -  filesystem-found firmware and > demand-loaded blobs.  I assume this call in firmware_loading_store() > is the demand-loaded blobs.  Does that method still exist?  Is it > still being used? Yeah its the stupid sysfs interface. So likely loadpin needs porting as you IMA as you did. Luis