From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au,
pjones@redhat.com, jwboyer@redhat.com,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@linux-nfs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x509_key_preparse() not to reject keys outside their validity time range
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:06:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5148D35F.5070704@ahsoftware.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1363263842.4853.35.camel@i7.infradead.org>
Am 14.03.2013 13:24, schrieb David Woodhouse:
> The x509_key_preparse() function will refuse to even *parse* a
> certificate when the system clock happens to be set to a time before the
> ValidFrom or after the ValidTo date.
>
> This is wrong. If date checks are to be done, they need to be done at
> the time the cert is *used*. It should be perfectly possible to load a
> cert which is post-dated, and can only be used for validation at some
> point in the future. The key in question should immediately start
> working at its ValidFrom date, and stop again at its ValidTo date. It
> should be allowed to *exist* in the kernel both before and after those
> times.
>
> On systems where the hardware clock is inaccurate (a common occurrence
> and one which doesn't even get noticed when you use NTP or something
> else to fix it during the boot sequence), this was preventing the module
> signing cert from being loaded during boot. When the clock got fixed
> later on in he boot sequence, things *should* have started working. But
> they didn't...
>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
> ---
>
> Arguably, for the specific case of module signing we shouldn't bother
> checking for a current time before the ValidFrom date *at all*. It's
> *always* going to be a screwed up system clock, because we don't have a
> usage model of post-dating module signatures. We should simply document
> that the date is *not* checked for module signing, and have done with
> it. But that's a separate issue.
>
> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> index 06007f0..326dc80 100644
> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> @@ -154,8 +154,6 @@ static int x509_key_preparse(struct key_preparsed_payload *prep)
> (now.tm_sec < cert->valid_from.tm_sec
> ))))))))))) {
> pr_warn("Cert %s is not yet valid\n", cert->fingerprint);
> - ret = -EKEYREJECTED;
> - goto error_free_cert;
> }
> if (now.tm_year > cert->valid_to.tm_year ||
> (now.tm_year == cert->valid_to.tm_year &&
> @@ -170,8 +168,6 @@ static int x509_key_preparse(struct key_preparsed_payload *prep)
> (now.tm_sec > cert->valid_to.tm_sec
> ))))))))))) {
> pr_warn("Cert %s has expired\n", cert->fingerprint);
> - ret = -EKEYEXPIRED;
> - goto error_free_cert;
> }
>
> cert->pub->algo = x509_public_key_algorithms[cert->pkey_algo];
Why not remove the check and warning there too?
Regards,
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-19 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-25 0:07 [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing David Howells
2012-09-25 0:11 ` David Howells
2012-09-25 15:09 ` Wrong system clock vs X.509 date specifiers David Howells
2012-09-25 15:30 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-25 15:35 ` David Howells
2012-09-25 15:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-25 16:00 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-25 21:57 ` David Howells
2012-09-25 16:02 ` Tomas Mraz
2012-09-25 17:31 ` David Howells
2012-09-25 18:39 ` Tomas Mraz
2013-03-14 10:48 ` David Woodhouse
2013-03-14 12:24 ` [PATCH] Fix x509_key_preparse() not to reject keys outside their validity time range David Woodhouse
2013-03-19 21:06 ` Alexander Holler [this message]
2012-09-25 15:44 ` [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-09-25 16:15 ` David Howells
2012-09-26 3:46 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-26 9:09 ` David Howells
2012-09-27 0:12 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-27 9:08 ` David Howells
2012-09-28 5:55 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 8:13 ` David Howells
2012-09-28 5:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] modsign: don't use bashism in sh scripts Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 8:10 ` David Howells
2012-10-02 2:24 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 5:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] modules: don't call eu-strip if it doesn't exist Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 8:11 ` David Howells
2012-09-28 6:05 ` [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 8:09 ` David Howells
2012-09-29 6:53 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-29 7:13 ` David Howells
2012-10-01 20:41 ` Josh Boyer
2012-10-02 3:28 ` Rusty Russell
2012-10-02 12:17 ` Josh Boyer
2012-09-29 7:16 ` David Howells
2012-10-02 6:12 ` Rusty Russell
2012-10-02 14:07 ` David Howells
2012-10-03 23:22 ` Rusty Russell
2012-10-09 10:55 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-10-10 9:37 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 9:23 ` David Howells
2012-09-28 10:31 ` David Howells
2012-10-03 17:50 ` [patch] MODSIGN: Fix build error with strict typechecking David Rientjes
2012-09-27 2:04 ` [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing Mimi Zohar
2012-09-28 6:54 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28 6:27 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-09-28 8:00 ` 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=5148D35F.5070704@ahsoftware.de \
--to=holler@ahsoftware.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au \
--cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
--cc=keyrings@linux-nfs.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pjones@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.