From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, masahiroy@kernel.org,
michal.lkml@markovi.net, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
ardb@kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
lszubowi@redhat.com, javierm@redhat.com,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries]
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 19:30:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99066eb7-53ac-41b0-46cf-36ea3d7f6590@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <188DE1AF-A011-4631-B88A-2C4324DA013B@oracle.com>
On 06/02/2021 02:14, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 2021, at 3:27 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/02/2021 01:24, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2021, at 1:26 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/02/2021 04:53, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks good to me, and it still works for my use case. Eric's
>>>>>> patchset only looks for asymmetric keys in the blacklist keyring, so
>>>>>> even if we use the same keyring we don't look for the same key types. My
>>>>>> patchset only allows blacklist keys (i.e. hashes, not asymmetric keys)
>>>>>> to be added by user space (if authenticated), but because Eric's
>>>>>> asymmetric keys are loaded with KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION, it should
>>>>>> be OK for his use case. There should be no interference between the two
>>>>>> new features, but I find it a bit confusing to have such distinct use of
>>>>>> keys from the same keyring depending on their type.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, it is a bit confusing. What is the thought of having a dbx
>>>>> keyring, similar to how the platform keyring works?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-security-module/msg40262.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/02/2021 17:26, David Howells wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the fifth patch series for adding support for
>>>>>>>> EFI_CERT_X509_GUID entries [1]. It has been expanded to not only include
>>>>>>>> dbx entries but also entries in the mokx. Additionally my series to
>>>>>>>> preload these certificate [2] has also been included.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, I've tentatively applied this to my keys-next branch. However, it
>>>>>>> conflicts minorly with Mickaël Salaün's patches that I've previously merged on
>>>>>>> the same branch. Can you have a look at the merge commit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=keys-next&id=fdbbe7ceeb95090d09c33ce0497e0394c82aa33d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the top patch of my keys-next branch)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to see if that is okay by both of you? If so, can you give it a whirl?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m seeing a build error within blacklist_hashes_checked with
>>>>> one of my configs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The config is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ grep CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST .config
>>>>> CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST=“revocation_list"
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat certs/revocation_list
>>>>> "tbs:1e125ea4f38acb7b29b0c495fd8e7602c2c3353b913811a9da3a2fb505c08a32”
>>>>>
>>>>> make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'revocation_list', needed by 'certs/blacklist_hashes_checked'. Stop.
>>>>
>>>> It requires an absolute path.
>>>
>>> Ok, if I use an absolute path now with CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST
>>> it works.
>>>
>>>> This is to align with other variables
>>>> using the config_filename macro: CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS,
>>>> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY and now CONFIG_SYSTEM_REVOCATION_KEYS.
>>>
>>> I just did a quick test with CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS. It looks like we
>>> can use either a relative or absolute path with CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS.
>>> Shouldn’t this be consistent?
>>
>> CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS (and similar config) works with relative path
>> to $(srctree) not $(srctree)/certs as in your example.
>
> Correct, I had "certs" in my relative path.
>
>> We can make CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST works with $(srctree) with
>> this patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/certs/Makefile b/certs/Makefile
>> index eb45407ff282..92a233eaa926 100644
>> --- a/certs/Makefile
>> +++ b/certs/Makefile
>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ $(eval $(call config_filename,SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST))
>>
>> $(obj)/blacklist_hashes.o: $(obj)/blacklist_hashes_checked
>>
>> +CFLAGS_blacklist_hashes.o += -I$(srctree)
>> +
>> targets += blacklist_hashes_checked
>
> After applying this patch, CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST now works
> like the other filename macros. It seems like this would be a good
> addition.
I'll send a patch with this.
>
> I have done some additional testing, I am seeing a regression. The blacklist
> keyring is no longer picking up any of the hashes from the dbx during boot.
> I backed out the merge with my changes (fdbbe7ceeb95090d09c33ce0497e0394c82aa33d)
> and still see the regression. I then backed out Mickaël merge
> (5bf1adccf5c41dbdd51d1f4de220d335d9548598) and it fixes the regression.
>
> On a x86 with the updated dbx from uefi.org, I’d expect to see 234 bin hash entries
> in the blacklist keyring. With the current merged code, there is none.
Hum, I missed a part in refactoring (commit
f78e50c8f750c0ac6767ac1ed006360cf77c56c4). :/
Could you please test the following patch?
diff --git a/certs/blacklist.c b/certs/blacklist.c
index 07c592ae5307..f998a2e85ddc 100644
--- a/certs/blacklist.c
+++ b/certs/blacklist.c
@@ -197,13 +197,16 @@ int mark_hash_blacklisted(const u8 *hash, size_t
hash_len,
enum blacklist_hash_type hash_type)
{
const char *buffer;
+ int err;
buffer = get_raw_hash(hash, hash_len, hash_type);
if (IS_ERR(buffer))
return PTR_ERR(buffer);
+ err = mark_raw_hash_blacklisted(buffer);
kfree(buffer);
- return 0;
+ return err;
}
Is it possible to test these kind of dbx blacklist with Qemu?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-06 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-22 18:10 [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries Eric Snowberg
2021-01-22 18:10 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] certs: Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx entries Eric Snowberg
2021-01-28 3:54 ` Nayna
2021-01-28 4:11 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-01-28 15:35 ` Nayna
2021-01-28 15:58 ` David Howells
2021-01-29 1:56 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-01-22 18:10 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] certs: Move load_system_certificate_list to a common function Eric Snowberg
2021-01-22 18:10 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] certs: Add ability to preload revocation certs Eric Snowberg
2021-01-22 18:10 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] integrity: Load mokx variables into the blacklist keyring Eric Snowberg
2021-01-28 15:16 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries David Howells
2021-01-28 15:27 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-01-28 15:29 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-01-28 15:41 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-02-03 16:26 ` Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries] David Howells
2021-02-03 18:49 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-04 3:53 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-02-04 8:26 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-05 0:24 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-02-05 10:27 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-06 1:14 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-02-06 18:30 ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
2021-02-08 23:05 ` Eric Snowberg
2021-02-09 21:53 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-10 12:07 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-09 13:14 ` David Howells
2021-02-09 13:59 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-09 16:46 ` David Howells
2021-02-12 11:49 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-04 9:11 ` David Howells
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=99066eb7-53ac-41b0-46cf-36ea3d7f6590@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=javierm@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lszubowi@redhat.com \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=tyhicks@linux.microsoft.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).