From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
keescook@chromium.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, scott.branden@broadcom.com,
weiyongjun1@huawei.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, ebiggers@google.com,
ardb@kernel.org,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
lszubowi@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, pjones@redhat.com,
"konrad.wilk@oracle.com" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Patrick Uiterwijk <patrick@puiterwijk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 07:46:57 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <809185b33150a7d25da6b11323af3d8dbe549836.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2c7eaceed715a92887b3d5aeafad01e047b6fab.camel@kernel.org>
On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 07:36 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 07:34 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 16:44 -0400, Nayna wrote:
> > > On 8/25/21 6:27 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 01:21 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 10:34 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Jarkko, I think the emphasis should not be on "machine" from
> > > > > > > > > Machine Owner Key (MOK), but on "owner". Whereas Nayna is
> > > > > > > > > focusing more on the "_ca" aspect of the name. Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > consider naming it "system_owner_ca" or something along those
> > > > > > > > > lines.
> > > > > > > > What do you gain such overly long identifier? Makes no sense.
> > > > > > > > What is "ca aspect of the name" anyway?
> > > > > > > As I mentioned previously, the main usage of this new keyring is
> > > > > > > that it should contain only CA keys which can be later used to
> > > > > > > vouch for user keys loaded onto secondary or IMA keyring at
> > > > > > > runtime. Having ca in the name like .xxxx_ca, would make the
> > > > > > > keyring name self-describing. Since you preferred .system, we can
> > > > > > > call it .system_ca.
> > > > > > Sounds good to me. Jarkko?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mimi
> > > > > I just wonder what you exactly gain with "_ca"?
> > > > Remember, a CA cert is a self signed cert with the CA:TRUE basic
> > > > constraint. Pretty much no secure boot key satisfies this (secure boot
> > > > chose deliberately NOT to use CA certificates, so they're all some type
> > > > of intermediate or leaf), so the design seems to be only to pick out
> > > > the CA certificates you put in the MOK keyring. Adding the _ca suffix
> > > > may deflect some of the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the
> > > > keyring" emails ...
> > >
> > > My understanding is the .system_ca keyring should not be restricted only
> > > to self-signed CAs (Root CA). Any cert that can qualify as Root or
> > > Intermediate CA with Basic Constraints CA:TRUE should be allowed. In
> > > fact, the intermediate CA certificates closest to the leaf nodes would
> > > be best.
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing up that adding the _ca suffix may deflect some of
> > > the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the keyring" emails.
> >
> > What the heck is the pragamatic gain of adding such a suffix? Makes
> > zero sense
>
> If this series needs both "system" and "system_ca" keyrings, then
> there would be some sanity in this.
>
> Also, I still *fully* lack understanding of the use of word system.
>
> Why MOK is not SOK then??
Please just call it "machine". You have machines that hold the keyring.
"system" does not mean anything concrete. I don't know what a "system"
is.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-01 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-19 0:20 [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:20 ` [PATCH v4 01/12] integrity: Introduce a Linux keyring for the Machine Owner Key (MOK) Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:20 ` [PATCH v4 02/12] integrity: Do not allow mok keyring updates following init Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 03/12] KEYS: CA link restriction Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 04/12] integrity: restrict INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MOK to restrict_link_by_ca Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 05/12] integrity: add new keyring handler for mok keys Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 06/12] KEYS: add a reference to mok keyring Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 07/12] KEYS: Introduce link restriction to include builtin, secondary and mok keys Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 08/12] KEYS: integrity: change link restriction to trust the mok keyring Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 09/12] KEYS: link secondary_trusted_keys to mok trusted keys Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 10/12] integrity: store reference to mok keyring Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 11/12] integrity: Trust MOK keys if MokListTrustedRT found Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v4 12/12] integrity: Only use mok keyring when uefi_check_trust_mok_keys is true Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-08-19 13:10 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-19 15:23 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-08-19 17:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-23 17:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-08-23 20:48 ` Nayna
2021-08-24 14:34 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-08-25 22:21 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-08-25 22:27 ` James Bottomley
2021-08-27 20:44 ` Nayna
2021-08-30 17:39 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-09-01 0:52 ` Nayna
2021-09-01 1:51 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-09-02 10:18 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-09-01 4:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-09-01 4:36 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-09-01 4:46 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2021-08-23 17:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-08-23 17:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-08-23 17:48 ` Eric Snowberg
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=809185b33150a7d25da6b11323af3d8dbe549836.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lszubowi@redhat.com \
--cc=nayna@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=patrick@puiterwijk.org \
--cc=pjones@redhat.com \
--cc=scott.branden@broadcom.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=weiyongjun1@huawei.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.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).