From: GONG Ruiqi <gongruiqi1@huawei.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
"Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@suse.com>, <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>, <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
Lu Jialin <lujialin4@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] integrity: Extract secure boot enquiry function out of IMA
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:29:07 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <362b3e8a-0949-42d1-a1d0-90bd12d86b09@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8aa7f94-3e52-488d-a858-564d3d1edd4b@linux.ibm.com>
On 7/8/2025 4:35 AM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>
> On 7/2/25 10:07 PM, GONG Ruiqi wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> "We encountered a boot failure issue in an in-house testing, where the
>> kernel refused to load its modules since it couldn't verify their
>> signature. The root cause turned out to be the early return of
>> load_uefi_certs(), where arch_ima_get_secureboot() returned false
>> unconditionally due to CONFIG_IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT=n, even
>> though the secure boot was enabled.
> Thanks for sharing additional details.
>
> From x86 Kconfig:
>
> /For config x86:
>
> imply IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI
> /
> And IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT is dependent on IMA_ARCH_POLICY .
>
> And from Linux Kernel Kbuild documentation( https://docs.kernel.org/
> kbuild/kconfig-language.html) :
>
> /weak reverse dependencies: “imply” <symbol> [“if” <expr>]
>
> This is similar to “select” as it enforces a lower limit on another
> symbol except that the “implied” symbol’s value may still be set to n
> from a direct dependency or with a visible prompt.
>
> /Following the example from the documentation, if it is EFI enabled and
> IMA_ARCH_POLICY is set to y then this config should be default enabled.
>
> If it is EFI enabled and IMA_ARCH_POLICY is set to N, then the setting
> for IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT should be prompted during the build.
> The default setting for prompt is N. So, the person doing the build
> should actually select Y to enable IMA_ARCH_POLICY.
>
> Wondering what is the scenario for you? Unless you have IMA_ARCH_POLICY
> set to N, this config should have been ideally enabled. If you have
> explicitly set it to N, am curious any specific reason for that.
Hi Nayna. Sorry for the late reply. Super busy these days...
Yes, IMA_ARCH_POLICY was not set. The testing was conducted on
openEuler[1], a Linux distro mainly for arm64 & x86, and the kernel was
compiled based on its own openeuler_defconfig[2], which set
IMA_ARCH_POLICY to N.
-Ruiqi
[1]: https://www.openeuler.org/en/
[2]:
https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/blob/OLK-6.6/arch/arm64/configs/openeuler_defconfig
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> - Nayna
>>
>> ...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-17 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-28 6:32 [PATCH v2] integrity: Extract secure boot enquiry function out of IMA GONG Ruiqi
2025-06-30 3:48 ` kernel test robot
2025-07-03 1:38 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-07-03 2:07 ` GONG Ruiqi
2025-07-03 3:35 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-07-03 5:19 ` GONG Ruiqi
2025-07-07 20:35 ` Nayna Jain
2025-07-17 12:29 ` GONG Ruiqi [this message]
2025-07-25 18:29 ` Nayna Jain
2025-07-28 12:17 ` GONG Ruiqi
2025-08-01 14:34 ` Nayna Jain
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=362b3e8a-0949-42d1-a1d0-90bd12d86b09@huawei.com \
--to=gongruiqi1@huawei.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jlee@suse.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lujialin4@huawei.com \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nayna@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.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