From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel lockdown Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 18:10:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1509660641.3416.24.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1509660086.3416.15.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <150842463163.7923.11081723749106843698.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <14219.1509660259@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <14219.1509660259@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells , mcgrof@kernel.org Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-efi , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 22:04 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Only validly signed device firmware may be loaded. > > > > fw_get_filesystem_firmware() calls kernel_read_file_from_path() to > > read the firmware, which calls into the security hooks. Is there > > another place that validates the firmware signatures.  I'm not seeing > > which patch requires firmware to be signed? > > Luis has a set of patches for this. However, I'm not sure if that's going > anywhere at the moment. Possibly I should remove this from the manpage for > the moment. Or reflect that IMA-appraisal, if enabled, will enforce firmware being validly signed. Mimi