[RFC PATCH 0/2] Enhancing Boot Speed and Security with Delayed Module Signature Verification

[RFC PATCH 0/2] Enhancing Boot Speed and Security with Delayed Module Signature Verification

[Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat)]

This patch sets up a new feature to the Linux kernel to have the ability,
while module signature checking is enabled, to delay the moment where
these signatures are effectively checked. The feature is structure into
two main key points, the feature can be enabled by a new command line
kernel argument, while in delay mode, the kernel waits until the
userspace communicates to start checking signature modules.
This operation can be done by writing a value in a securityfs file,
which works the same as /sys/kernel/security/lockdown.

Patch 1/2: Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility
The first patch in this set fundamentally alters the kernel's behavior
at boot time by implementing a delayed module signature verification
mechanism. It introduces a new boot-time kernel argument that allows
users to request this delay. By doing so, we aim to capitalize on the
cryptographic checks already performed on the kernel and initrd images
during the secure boot process. As a result, we can significantly
improve the boot speed without compromising system security.

Patch 2/2: docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification
enhancement
The second patch is just to update the kernel parameters list
documentation.

Background and Motivation
In certain contexts, boot speed becomes crucial. This patch follows the
recognition that security checks can at times be redundant. Therefore,
it proves valuable to skip those checks that have already been validated.

In a typical Secure Boot startup with an initrd, the bootloader is
responsible for verifying artifacts before relinquishing control. In a
verified initrd image, it is reasonable to assume that its content is
also secure. Consequently, verifying module signatures may be deemed
unnecessary.
This patch introduces a feature to skip signature verification during
the initrd boot phase.

Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) (2):
  Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility
  docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification
    enhancement

 .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  9 +++
 include/linux/module.h                        |  4 ++
 kernel/module/main.c                          | 14 +++--
 kernel/module/signing.c                       | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[RFC PATCH 1/2] Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility

[Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat)]

This commit introduces a novel boot argument parameter that provides an
advanced level of control over the verification of module signatures
during the initial stages of booting. With this enhancement, we gain the
capability to postpone the verification of module signatures to after
intrd stage is finished.

Given that bootloader-provided artifacts are commonly employed
post-verification, we can effectively capitalize on this verification
process and exempt the verification of modules within the initrd.
This strategic adjustment reduces the time needed in this stage to load
modules by temporarily enabling unsigned modules.
Before terminating the stage modules signature check can be re-enabled
keeping the system security level.

To activate this functionality, a fresh boot argument parameter has
been incorporated to disable verification during early boot.
Furthermore, a supplementary method is necessary to reactivate
verification subsequently.

This is executed by leveraging a switch within a /proc file, inspired
by the foundational principles of the Lockdown LSM levels. While this
mechanism permits the activation of the functionaliity, and it ensures
that the switch remains unalterable once engaged.

example usage:
```
$ qemu-system-aarch64 -M virt -cpu cortex-a53 -machine gic-version=3 \
               -m 512 -nographic -smp 2 -kernel arch/arm64/boot/Image \
               -initrd aarch64br.initrd \
               -append "rootwait init=/sbin/init module_sig_check_wait=1"

[    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000000 [0x410fd034]
[...]
[    0.689441] Freeing unused kernel memory: 8576K
[    0.690536] Run /init as init process
Starting syslogd: OK
Starting klogd: OK
Running sysctl: OK
Saving 256 bits of non-creditable seed for next boot
Starting network: OK

Welcome to Buildroot
buildroot login: root
~ # cat /sys/module/module/parameters/sig_enforce
Y
~ # mount -t securityfs none  /sys/kernel/security
~ # cat /sys/kernel/security/module_sig_check_wait
1
~ # insmod usbserial.ko
~ # lsmod
Module                  Size  Used by    Not tainted
usbserial              36864  0
~ # rmmod usbserial
~ # echo 0 >/sys/kernel/security/module_sig_check_wait
[  226.114569] module_sig_check_wait disabled!
~ # insmod usbserial.ko
[  230.646980] Loading of unsigned module is rejected
[  230.648608] Loading of unsigned module is rejected
insmod: can't insert 'usbserial.ko': Key was rejected by service
~ # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/security/module_sig_check_wait
[  248.036518] module_sig_check_wait can be only disabled!
~ #
```

Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/module.h  |  4 +++
 kernel/module/main.c    | 14 ++++++-----
 kernel/module/signing.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
index a98e188cf37b..9899aeac43b0 100644
--- a/include/linux/module.h
+++ b/include/linux/module.h
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
 
 #define MODULE_NAME_LEN MAX_PARAM_PREFIX_LEN
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
+extern int module_sig_check_wait;
+#endif
+
 struct modversion_info {
 	unsigned long crc;
 	char name[MODULE_NAME_LEN];
diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
index 59b1d067e528..d24dd1f728f2 100644
--- a/kernel/module/main.c
+++ b/kernel/module/main.c
@@ -2033,12 +2033,14 @@ static void module_augment_kernel_taints(struct module *mod, struct load_info *i
 		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_TEST, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
 	}
 #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
-	mod->sig_ok = info->sig_ok;
-	if (!mod->sig_ok) {
-		pr_notice_once("%s: module verification failed: signature "
-			       "and/or required key missing - tainting "
-			       "kernel\n", mod->name);
-		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
+	if (!module_sig_check_wait) {
+		mod->sig_ok = info->sig_ok;
+		if (!mod->sig_ok) {
+			pr_notice_once("%s: module verification failed: signature "
+				       "and/or required key missing - tainting "
+				       "kernel\n", mod->name);
+			add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
+		}
 	}
 #endif
 
diff --git a/kernel/module/signing.c b/kernel/module/signing.c
index a2ff4242e623..2580ceed3cdb 100644
--- a/kernel/module/signing.c
+++ b/kernel/module/signing.c
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
 #undef MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX
 #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX "module."
 
+int module_sig_check_wait;
+
 static bool sig_enforce = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE);
 module_param(sig_enforce, bool_enable_only, 0644);
 
@@ -37,6 +39,58 @@ void set_module_sig_enforced(void)
 	sig_enforce = true;
 }
 
+/*
+ * test thing to enable sig enforcing later in boot sequence
+ */
+static int __init module_sig_check_wait_arg(char *str)
+{
+	return kstrtoint(str, 0, &module_sig_check_wait);
+}
+__setup("module_sig_check_wait=", module_sig_check_wait_arg);
+
+/*
+ * securityfs entry to disable module_sig_check_wait, and start enforcing modules signature check
+ */
+static ssize_t module_sig_check_wait_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count,
+					  loff_t *ppos)
+{
+	return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos,
+				       module_sig_check_wait == 1 ? "1\n" : "0\n", 2);
+}
+
+static ssize_t module_sig_check_wait_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
+					   size_t n, loff_t *ppos)
+{
+	int tmp;
+
+	if (kstrtoint_from_user(buf, n, 10, &tmp))
+		return -EINVAL;
+	if (tmp != 0) {
+		pr_info("module_sig_check_wait can be only disabled!\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+	pr_info("module_sig_check_wait disabled!\n");
+	module_sig_check_wait = tmp;
+
+	return n;
+}
+
+static const struct file_operations module_sig_check_wait_ops = {
+	.read  = module_sig_check_wait_read,
+	.write = module_sig_check_wait_write,
+};
+
+static int __init module_sig_check_wait_secfs_init(void)
+{
+	struct dentry *dentry;
+
+	dentry = securityfs_create_file("module_sig_check_wait", 0644, NULL, NULL,
+					&module_sig_check_wait_ops);
+	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dentry);
+}
+
+core_initcall(module_sig_check_wait_secfs_init);
+
 /*
  * Verify the signature on a module.
  */
@@ -69,6 +123,8 @@ int mod_verify_sig(const void *mod, struct load_info *info)
 
 int module_sig_check(struct load_info *info, int flags)
 {
+	if (module_sig_check_wait)
+		return 0;
 	int err = -ENODATA;
 	const unsigned long markerlen = sizeof(MODULE_SIG_STRING) - 1;
 	const char *reason;
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 11:27:38AM +0000, Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) wrote:
> This commit introduces a novel boot argument parameter that provides an
> advanced level of control over the verification of module signatures
> during the initial stages of booting. With this enhancement, we gain the
> capability to postpone the verification of module signatures to after
> intrd stage is finished.
> 
> Given that bootloader-provided artifacts are commonly employed
> post-verification,

Is such a thing expressed with a kernel config? If so then shouldn't
this be default for those uses cases?

> Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/module.h  |  4 +++
>  kernel/module/main.c    | 14 ++++++-----
>  kernel/module/signing.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> index a98e188cf37b..9899aeac43b0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
>  
>  #define MODULE_NAME_LEN MAX_PARAM_PREFIX_LEN
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
> +extern int module_sig_check_wait;
> +#endif

Please add under is_module_sig_enforced. That's one new line Vs 3 new ones.

I see the code which skips module signature verification and the knobs
but I don't see the code which complete the promise to do the actual
signature verification post initrd / initramfs state. What gives?

  Luis

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility

[Alessandro Carminati]

Hello Luis,

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts about this topic.

Il giorno gio 16 nov 2023 alle ore 18:35 Luis Chamberlain
<mcgrof@kernel.org> ha scritto:
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 11:27:38AM +0000, Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) wrote:
> > This commit introduces a novel boot argument parameter that provides an
> > advanced level of control over the verification of module signatures
> > during the initial stages of booting. With this enhancement, we gain the
> > capability to postpone the verification of module signatures to after
> > intrd stage is finished.
> >
> > Given that bootloader-provided artifacts are commonly employed
> > post-verification,
>
> Is such a thing expressed with a kernel config? If so then shouldn't
> this be default for those uses cases?
>

I've hesitated to propose this as the default behavior for a few reasons:
The current patch doesn’t include a check for the secure boot chain being
enabled.
From what I've learned, confirming secure boot mode on UEFI systems,
especially on non x86 targets, lacks a standardized method.
Considering this, I've chosen to leave the decision to users who can
specify a command-line argument during kernel boot.

Implementing a new feature as default in the kernel might face resistance
and seem intrusive.
To avoid potential conflicts, I lean towards letting users choose to opt
into this feature.

Additionally, It’s essential to acknowledge that not all kernels involve an
initrd phase.
Embedded systems often differ in their use of an initrd compared to traditional
Linux distributions.
Enforcing this feature by default might not align with the preferences of
the embedded systems community.
I'm open to investing time in proposing conditions that might pave the way for
this feature to become default if certain conditions are met.

> > Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/module.h  |  4 +++
> >  kernel/module/main.c    | 14 ++++++-----
> >  kernel/module/signing.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> > index a98e188cf37b..9899aeac43b0 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/module.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> > @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
> >
> >  #define MODULE_NAME_LEN MAX_PARAM_PREFIX_LEN
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
> > +extern int module_sig_check_wait;
> > +#endif
>
> Please add under is_module_sig_enforced. That's one new line Vs 3 new ones.
>
> I see the code which skips module signature verification and the knobs
> but I don't see the code which complete the promise to do the actual
> signature verification post initrd / initramfs state. What gives?

My initial intention wasn't centered around providing an automated solution.
Instead, I envisioned a design where users could manually restore module
verification during a specific point in their init scripts.

It might be plausible to restore module verification when the rootfs is
remounted. However, this seems limiting rather than advantageous.

To offer users maximum flexibility, I considered a solution involving a
sysfs file as a control mechanism.

The objective of the RFC I sent out is to gather opinions on this feature.
Understanding what people think about it is very welcome. In this context,
the question arises: would it be better to have an automated solution that
restores the module signature verification automatically?

>
>   Luis

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 02:56:53PM +0100, Alessandro Carminati wrote:
> Il giorno gio 16 nov 2023 alle ore 18:35 Luis Chamberlain
> <mcgrof@kernel.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > I see the code which skips module signature verification and the knobs
> > but I don't see the code which complete the promise to do the actual
> > signature verification post initrd / initramfs state. What gives?
> 
> My initial intention wasn't centered around providing an automated solution.

It is not even an automated solution, it's *any* solution. So to be
clear your patch simply disables module verification, it has no
solution.

> Instead, I envisioned a design where users could manually restore module
> verification during a specific point in their init scripts.
> 
> It might be plausible to restore module verification when the rootfs is
> remounted. However, this seems limiting rather than advantageous.

The patch as-is describes a lofty world and does nothing other than
disables module verification. If a patch disables module verification
it should just do that and describe that. Nothing else. The subject
of the patch tends to suggest some flexibility it provided but does
nothing of being flexible, it outright disables module signature
verification. The commit log and the patch subject description are
describing something completely different than what the code actually
does, and it gives me to the concern, to the point that if you didn't
have a few commit logs in the kernel I would have thought your intent
was test kernel developers with some AI type of code that does something
stupid and very carefully crafted commit log.

Nacked-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>

  Luis

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility

[Luca Boccassi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3585 bytes --]

On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 10:33 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 02:56:53PM +0100, Alessandro Carminati wrote:
> > Il giorno gio 16 nov 2023 alle ore 18:35 Luis Chamberlain
> > <mcgrof@kernel.org> ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > I see the code which skips module signature verification and the knobs
> > > but I don't see the code which complete the promise to do the actual
> > > signature verification post initrd / initramfs state. What gives?
> > 
> > My initial intention wasn't centered around providing an automated solution.
> 
> It is not even an automated solution, it's *any* solution. So to be
> clear your patch simply disables module verification, it has no
> solution.
> 
> > Instead, I envisioned a design where users could manually restore module
> > verification during a specific point in their init scripts.
> > 
> > It might be plausible to restore module verification when the rootfs is
> > remounted. However, this seems limiting rather than advantageous.
> 
> The patch as-is describes a lofty world and does nothing other than
> disables module verification. If a patch disables module verification
> it should just do that and describe that. Nothing else. The subject
> of the patch tends to suggest some flexibility it provided but does
> nothing of being flexible, it outright disables module signature
> verification. The commit log and the patch subject description are
> describing something completely different than what the code actually
> does, and it gives me to the concern, to the point that if you didn't
> have a few commit logs in the kernel I would have thought your intent
> was test kernel developers with some AI type of code that does something
> stupid and very carefully crafted commit log.
> 
> Nacked-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> 
>   Luis

Hi,

On top of that, this change would go counter to the security posture
that is established by the Lockdown LSM, especially when UEFI Secure
Boot is used. While it would be great if initrds were only ever read-
only, signed, and verified, the reality is that on all general purpose
distributions in use today the initrd is writable by root, and the
kernel command line is also writable by root.

E.g.: on Debian, one just has to edit /etc/default/grub, run a command
and at the next reboot arbitrary kernel command line parameters will be
applied, including this one, and combined with adding an arbitrary
kernel module to the appropriate path this becomes, de-facto, a uid0-
to-ring0 privilege escalation avenue, which is something the secure
boot + shim + lockdown workflow tries very hard to avoid.

While there might be room for such features (e.g.:
https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/LSM/LoadPin.html ) in very specific
and defined environment or use cases, at the very least there needs to
be:

- the mechanism to lock it down again very early at boot as indicated
in the cover letter, which is missing as pointed out by Luis
- a kconfig governing the availability of the new kernel cmdline
option, disabled by default
- ideally a check or hook into the Lockdown LSM, so that it can stop
the new kernel command line option, if enabled at build time and if
specified, from actually working when secure boot is enabled, or at the
very, very minimum taint it

Then users wanting to use such a performance optimization will be able
to do so in their own special purpose builds, without negatively
affecting the security story of generalist distributions.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[RFC PATCH 2/2] docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification enhancement

[Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat)]

Update kernel-parameters.txt to reflect new deferred signature
verification.
Enhances boot speed by allowing unsigned modules in initrd after
bootloader check.

Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index 0c38a8af95ce..beec86f0dd05 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -3410,6 +3410,15 @@
 			Note that if CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is set, that
 			is always true, so this option does nothing.
 
+	module_sig_check_wait=
+			This parameter enables delayed activation of module
+			signature checks, deferring the process until userspace
+			triggers it. Once activated, this setting becomes
+			permanent and cannot be reversed. This feature proves
+			valuable for incorporating unsigned modules within
+			initrd, especially after bootloader verification.
+			By employing this option, boot times can be quicker.
+
 	module_blacklist=  [KNL] Do not load a comma-separated list of
 			modules.  Useful for debugging problem modules.
 
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification enhancement

[Randy Dunlap]

On 9/14/23 04:27, Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) wrote:
> Update kernel-parameters.txt to reflect new deferred signature
> verification.
> Enhances boot speed by allowing unsigned modules in initrd after
> bootloader check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 0c38a8af95ce..beec86f0dd05 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3410,6 +3410,15 @@
>  			Note that if CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is set, that
>  			is always true, so this option does nothing.
>  
> +	module_sig_check_wait=
> +			This parameter enables delayed activation of module
> +			signature checks, deferring the process until userspace
> +			triggers it. Once activated, this setting becomes
> +			permanent and cannot be reversed. This feature proves
> +			valuable for incorporating unsigned modules within
> +			initrd, especially after bootloader verification.
> +			By employing this option, boot times can be quicker.
> +

Please keep the entries here in alphabetical order.
This new entry should be after module_blacklist, not before it.
Thanks.

>  	module_blacklist=  [KNL] Do not load a comma-separated list of
>  			modules.  Useful for debugging problem modules.
>  

-- 
~Randy

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification enhancement

[Prarit Bhargava]

On 9/14/23 07:27, Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) wrote:
> Update kernel-parameters.txt to reflect new deferred signature
> verification.
> Enhances boot speed by allowing unsigned modules in initrd after
> bootloader check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
> ---
>   Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +++++++++
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 0c38a8af95ce..beec86f0dd05 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3410,6 +3410,15 @@
>   			Note that if CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is set, that
>   			is always true, so this option does nothing.
>   
> +	module_sig_check_wait=
> +			This parameter enables delayed activation of module
> +			signature checks, deferring the process until userspace
> +			triggers it. Once activated, this setting becomes
> +			permanent and cannot be reversed. This feature proves
> +			valuable for incorporating unsigned modules within
> +			initrd, especially after bootloader verification.
> +			By employing this option, boot times can be quicker.
> +

Please keep these in alphabetical order.

Would making the kernel-parameters.txt warning a little bit more 
informative be a good thing?  This should only be used in environments 
where some other signature verification method is employed.

Also, for future reference, it would be good to have hard numbers to 
show the boot time improvement in the changelog.

P.

>   	module_blacklist=  [KNL] Do not load a comma-separated list of
>   			modules.  Useful for debugging problem modules.
>   

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification enhancement

[Alessandro Carminati]

Hello Prarit,

Il giorno mer 8 nov 2023 alle ore 16:33 Prarit Bhargava
<prarit@redhat.com> ha scritto:
>
> On 9/14/23 07:27, Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) wrote:
> > Update kernel-parameters.txt to reflect new deferred signature
> > verification.
> > Enhances boot speed by allowing unsigned modules in initrd after
> > bootloader check.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 0c38a8af95ce..beec86f0dd05 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -3410,6 +3410,15 @@
> >                       Note that if CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is set, that
> >                       is always true, so this option does nothing.
> >
> > +     module_sig_check_wait=
> > +                     This parameter enables delayed activation of module
> > +                     signature checks, deferring the process until userspace
> > +                     triggers it. Once activated, this setting becomes
> > +                     permanent and cannot be reversed. This feature proves
> > +                     valuable for incorporating unsigned modules within
> > +                     initrd, especially after bootloader verification.
> > +                     By employing this option, boot times can be quicker.
> > +
>
> Please keep these in alphabetical order.
>
> Would making the kernel-parameters.txt warning a little bit more
> informative be a good thing?  This should only be used in environments
> where some other signature verification method is employed.
>
> Also, for future reference, it would be good to have hard numbers to
> show the boot time improvement in the changelog.
I'll do the necessary adjustments in the v2, thank you for your feedback.
>
> P.
>
> >       module_blacklist=  [KNL] Do not load a comma-separated list of
> >                       modules.  Useful for debugging problem modules.
> >
>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Enhancing Boot Speed and Security with Delayed Module Signature Verification

[Prarit Bhargava]

On 9/14/23 07:27, Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) wrote:
> This patch sets up a new feature to the Linux kernel to have the ability,
> while module signature checking is enabled, to delay the moment where
> these signatures are effectively checked. The feature is structure into
> two main key points, the feature can be enabled by a new command line
> kernel argument, while in delay mode, the kernel waits until the
> userspace communicates to start checking signature modules.
> This operation can be done by writing a value in a securityfs file,
> which works the same as /sys/kernel/security/lockdown.
> 
> Patch 1/2: Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility
> The first patch in this set fundamentally alters the kernel's behavior
> at boot time by implementing a delayed module signature verification
> mechanism. It introduces a new boot-time kernel argument that allows
> users to request this delay. By doing so, we aim to capitalize on the
> cryptographic checks already performed on the kernel and initrd images
> during the secure boot process. As a result, we can significantly
> improve the boot speed without compromising system security.
> 
> Patch 2/2: docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification
> enhancement
> The second patch is just to update the kernel parameters list
> documentation.
> 
> Background and Motivation
> In certain contexts, boot speed becomes crucial. This patch follows the
> recognition that security checks can at times be redundant. Therefore,
> it proves valuable to skip those checks that have already been validated.
> 
> In a typical Secure Boot startup with an initrd, the bootloader is
> responsible for verifying artifacts before relinquishing control. In a
> verified initrd image, it is reasonable to assume that its content is
> also secure. Consequently, verifying module signatures may be deemed
> unnecessary.
> This patch introduces a feature to skip signature verification during
> the initrd boot phase.
> 

I think this is fine to do.  There is some risk for users who may use 
this without realizing what they're actually doing and then would end up 
creating a security hole.  But there are far worse ways you can do that 
with access to kernel paramaters.

P.

> Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) (2):
>    Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility
>    docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification
>      enhancement
> 
>   .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  9 +++
>   include/linux/module.h                        |  4 ++
>   kernel/module/main.c                          | 14 +++--
>   kernel/module/signing.c                       | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Enhancing Boot Speed and Security with Delayed Module Signature Verification

[Alessandro Carminati]

gentle ping


Il giorno gio 14 set 2023 alle ore 13:28 Alessandro Carminati (Red
Hat) <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> This patch sets up a new feature to the Linux kernel to have the ability,
> while module signature checking is enabled, to delay the moment where
> these signatures are effectively checked. The feature is structure into
> two main key points, the feature can be enabled by a new command line
> kernel argument, while in delay mode, the kernel waits until the
> userspace communicates to start checking signature modules.
> This operation can be done by writing a value in a securityfs file,
> which works the same as /sys/kernel/security/lockdown.
>
> Patch 1/2: Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility
> The first patch in this set fundamentally alters the kernel's behavior
> at boot time by implementing a delayed module signature verification
> mechanism. It introduces a new boot-time kernel argument that allows
> users to request this delay. By doing so, we aim to capitalize on the
> cryptographic checks already performed on the kernel and initrd images
> during the secure boot process. As a result, we can significantly
> improve the boot speed without compromising system security.
>
> Patch 2/2: docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification
> enhancement
> The second patch is just to update the kernel parameters list
> documentation.
>
> Background and Motivation
> In certain contexts, boot speed becomes crucial. This patch follows the
> recognition that security checks can at times be redundant. Therefore,
> it proves valuable to skip those checks that have already been validated.
>
> In a typical Secure Boot startup with an initrd, the bootloader is
> responsible for verifying artifacts before relinquishing control. In a
> verified initrd image, it is reasonable to assume that its content is
> also secure. Consequently, verifying module signatures may be deemed
> unnecessary.
> This patch introduces a feature to skip signature verification during
> the initrd boot phase.
>
> Alessandro Carminati (Red Hat) (2):
>   Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature flexibility
>   docs: Update kernel-parameters.txt for signature verification
>     enhancement
>
>  .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  9 +++
>  include/linux/module.h                        |  4 ++
>  kernel/module/main.c                          | 14 +++--
>  kernel/module/signing.c                       | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>