Re: linux-next: UEFI Secure boot lockdown patchset

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 23:46 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:43 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 22:32 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MODULE is defined, but doesn't appear to be used
> > > anywhere. Odd. Anyway, distributions are unlikely to ship with
> > > CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING since it makes it impossible for users
> to
> > > determine which set of IMA or EVM signatures they want to trust. So if
> > > validation is against the IMA keyring rather than builtin_trusted_keys,
> > > it's going to be possible for users to extend the set of trusted keys.
> If
> > > CONFIG_KEXEC_BZIMAGE_VERIFY_SIG is set then the kernel seems to do the
> > > right thing here, but it's not clear to me how that's supposed to
> interact
> > > with IMA?
> 
> >  From your description, whatever keys the distros are loading onto the
> > builtin_trusted_keys keyring for verifying the kexec kernel image,
> > could just as easily be added to the IMA trusted keyring
> > (CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING).  I don't see the difference.
> 
> If CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING isn't set then you can load new (and
> unsigned) IMA keys from userspace. So if IMA is the lockdown control
> mechanism for kexec, distros must either set
> CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING (which I don't think is practical) or IMA
> should test kexec against the builtin_trusted_keys keyring rather than the
> IMA keyring. Or have I misunderstood how this works?

Another option is enabling both CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING and
CONFIG_SYSTEM_EXTRA_CERTIFICATE.

Mimi