From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Eric Snowberg" <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>, <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
<dhowells@redhat.com>, <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: <mic@linux.microsoft.com>, <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>,
<konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
<keyrings@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] certs: Restrict blacklist updates to the secondary trusted keyring
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 01:01:31 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CVGFDI2VELSN.2E98O6TF5TZ0E@suppilovahvero> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230908213428.731513-1-eric.snowberg@oracle.com>
On Sat Sep 9, 2023 at 12:34 AM EEST, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> Currently root can dynamically update the blacklist keyring if the hash
> being added is signed and vouched for by the builtin trusted keyring.
> Currently keys in the secondary trusted keyring can not be used.
>
> Keys within the secondary trusted keyring carry the same capabilities as
> the builtin trusted keyring. Relax the current restriction for updating
> the .blacklist keyring and allow the secondary to also be referenced as
> a trust source. Since the machine keyring is linked to the secondary
> trusted keyring, any key within it may also be used.
>
> An example use case for this is IMA appraisal. Now that IMA both
> references the blacklist keyring and allows the machine owner to add
> custom IMA CA certs via the machine keyring, this adds the additional
> capability for the machine owner to also do revocations on a running
> system.
>
> IMA appraisal usage example to add a revocation for /usr/foo:
>
> sha256sum /bin/foo | awk '{printf "bin:" $1}' > hash.txt
>
> openssl smime -sign -in hash.txt -inkey machine-private-key.pem \
> -signer machine-certificate.pem -noattr -binary -outform DER \
> -out hash.p7s
>
> keyctl padd blacklist "$(< hash.txt)" %:.blacklist < hash.p7s
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>
> ---
> certs/Kconfig | 2 +-
> certs/blacklist.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/certs/Kconfig b/certs/Kconfig
> index 1f109b070877..23dc87c52aff 100644
> --- a/certs/Kconfig
> +++ b/certs/Kconfig
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ config SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_AUTH_UPDATE
> depends on SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION
> help
> If set, provide the ability to load new blacklist keys at run time if
> - they are signed and vouched by a certificate from the builtin trusted
> + they are signed and vouched by a certificate from the secondary trusted
> keyring. The PKCS#7 signature of the description is set in the key
> payload. Blacklist keys cannot be removed.
>
> diff --git a/certs/blacklist.c b/certs/blacklist.c
> index 675dd7a8f07a..0b346048ae2d 100644
> --- a/certs/blacklist.c
> +++ b/certs/blacklist.c
> @@ -102,12 +102,12 @@ static int blacklist_key_instantiate(struct key *key,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_AUTH_UPDATE
> /*
> - * Verifies the description's PKCS#7 signature against the builtin
> + * Verifies the description's PKCS#7 signature against the secondary
> * trusted keyring.
> */
> err = verify_pkcs7_signature(key->description,
> strlen(key->description), prep->data, prep->datalen,
> - NULL, VERIFYING_UNSPECIFIED_SIGNATURE, NULL, NULL);
> + VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING, VERIFYING_UNSPECIFIED_SIGNATURE, NULL, NULL);
> if (err)
> return err;
> #else
> --
> 2.39.3
What if a live system in the wild assumes the old policy? I feel that
this is "sort of" breaking backwards compatibility but please prove me
wrong.
BR, Jarkko
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-12 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-08 21:34 [PATCH] certs: Restrict blacklist updates to the secondary trusted keyring Eric Snowberg
2023-09-11 13:29 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-09-11 16:51 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-09-11 22:17 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-11 23:08 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-09-12 2:00 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-12 11:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-09-12 17:11 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-12 22:47 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-09-13 2:40 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-13 10:21 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-09-13 22:29 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-14 8:34 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-10-05 10:32 ` RFC: New LSM to control usage of x509 certificates Mickaël Salaün
2023-10-05 14:05 ` Paul Moore
2023-10-17 13:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-10-17 15:45 ` Paul Moore
2023-10-17 17:08 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-10-17 17:29 ` Paul Moore
2023-10-17 17:58 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-10-17 18:51 ` Paul Moore
2023-10-17 19:34 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-10-18 14:14 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-10-18 23:12 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-10-19 9:12 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-10-19 23:08 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-10-20 15:05 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-10-20 15:26 ` Roberto Sassu
2023-10-20 15:53 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-11 22:04 ` [PATCH] certs: Restrict blacklist updates to the secondary trusted keyring Jarkko Sakkinen
2023-09-11 22:23 ` Eric Snowberg
2023-09-11 22:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
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=CVGFDI2VELSN.2E98O6TF5TZ0E@suppilovahvero \
--to=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mic@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox