From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patch attestation RFC + proof of concept Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:42:31 -0500 Message-ID: <20200226204231.x5jbqgmkedtgpkmn@chatter.i7.local> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200226201140.GA24263@ziepe.ca> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 04:11:40PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > If you look at the contents of the patch attestation message > > (https://lore.kernel.org/signatures/202002251425.E7847687B@keescook/), > > you will notice a yaml-style formatted document with a series of > > three hashes. Let's take the first one as example: > > > > 2a02abe0-215cf3f1-2acb5798: > > i: 2a02abe02216f626105622aee2f26ab10c155b6442e23441d90fc5fe4071b86e > > m: 215cf3f133478917ad147a6eda1010a9c4bba1846e7dd35295e9a0081559e9b0 > > p: 2acb5798c366f97501f8feacb873327bac161951ce83e90f04bbcde32e993865 > > > > The source of these hashes is the following patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening/20200225051307.6401-2-keescook@chromium.org/ > > If you define an alternative message signature algorithm like this, > then is there still value in detatching the PGP signature from the > patch email? I believe that yes, because it offers better workflows around the following scenarios: - developer does all their work on a remote VM that doesn't have access to their PGP keys and submits actual attestation when they get back to their workstation - developer configures their smartcard to require a PIN during each operation and disables the pgp-agent; sending a series of 40 patches requires a single PIN entry instead of 40 - developer submits a v1 of the patch that they don't expect to pass on the first try and doesn't bother submitting attestation; shockingly, the maintainer accepts it as-is and the developer can attest their patches post-fact *without* needing to collect all the acked-by's reviewed-by's etc from all others who have already responded to the v1 submission > The usual PGP signature computes a hash of the message in a certain > way (with unquoting etc). If you instead replace that with your method > and then just generate the normal base64 blob using: > > msg_hash = HASH(HASH(i) || HASH(m) || HASH(p)) > sig = RSA_Sign(msg_hash) The reason I want to leave i/m/p hashes individually present is because it makes it possible to query patch attestation information based on a subset of full information. For example, a maintainer will almost certainly edit the message content to add their own Signed-off-by, and may edit the patch for minor nitpicking. Full i-m-p attestation will fail in this case, but we can then query the signatures archive for each individual hash to identify which part of the submission fails validation: https://lore.kernel.org/signatures/?q=2a02abe02216f626105622aee2f26ab10c155b6442e23441d90fc5fe4071b86e This lets us present the maintainer with more useful info, like: "full attestation failed, but the only changed part is actually the message and not the patch content, so it's probably still okay to apply." > Then the base64 of the sig can just be dropped at the end of the > message, and doesn't need to be detached, or need the various ---BEGIN > PGP--- overheads > > The magic I see here is defining a way to compute the message hash of > a patch email that doesn't cause a big mess. I still think that one of the key benefits of this proposal is being able to submit patch attestation data post-fact. For signatures included with patches, I'd rather see this happen during the git-format-patch step following Vagard Nossum's work of fully reconstructing commits from patches -- see my email to the git list here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200226200929.z4aej74ohbkgcdza@chatter.i7.local/T/#u Best, -K
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-26 17:25 Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-02-26 17:50 ` Kees Cook 2020-02-26 18:47 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-02-26 20:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2020-02-26 20:42 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev [this message] 2020-02-26 21:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2020-02-26 21:18 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-02-27 1:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2020-02-27 4:11 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2020-02-27 10:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2020-02-27 13:30 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2020-02-27 14:29 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-02-28 1:57 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2020-02-28 2:30 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2020-02-28 18:33 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-02-28 17:54 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-03-06 16:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
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=20200226204231.x5jbqgmkedtgpkmn@chatter.i7.local \ --to=konstantin@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \ --cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \ /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
Workflows Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/0 workflows/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 workflows workflows/ https://lore.kernel.org/workflows \ workflows@vger.kernel.org public-inbox-index workflows Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.workflows AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git