From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH V31 07/25] kexec_file: Restrict at runtime if the kernel is locked down Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:51:48 +0800 Message-ID: <20190625025148.GA4024@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <20190326182742.16950-1-matthewgarrett@google.com> <20190326182742.16950-8-matthewgarrett@google.com> <20190621064340.GB4528@localhost.localdomain> <20190624015206.GB2976@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: James Morris , Jiri Bohac , Linux API , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , LSM List , Andy Lutomirski List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 06/24/19 at 02:06pm, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 6:52 PM Dave Young wrote: > > > > On 06/21/19 at 01:18pm, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > I don't think so - we want it to be possible to load images if they > > > have a valid signature. > > > > I know it works like this way because of the previous patch. But from > > the patch log "When KEXEC_SIG is not enabled, kernel should not load > > images", it is simple to check it early for !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_SIG) && > > kernel_is_locked_down(reason, LOCKDOWN_INTEGRITY) instead of depending > > on the late code to verify signature. In that way, easier to > > understand the logic, no? > > But that combination doesn't enforce signature validation? We can't > depend on !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_SIG_FORCE) because then it'll > enforce signature validation even if lockdown is disabled. Ok, got your point. still something could be improved though, in the switch chunk, the errno, reason and IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_SIG_FORCE) etc is not necessary for this -EPERM case. /* add some comment to describe the behavior */ if (ret && security_is_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_KEXEC)) { ret = -EPERM; goto out; } Thanks Dave