From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 17:41:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 03/27] Enforce module signatures if the kernel is locked down In-Reply-To: <12321.1509658211@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <1509650031.3507.20.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1509130095.3716.13.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <150842463163.7923.11081723749106843698.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <150842465546.7923.6762214527898273559.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20240.1509643356@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <12321.1509658211@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Message-ID: <1509658881.3416.10.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 21:30 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > By this point, IMA-appraisal has already verified the kernel module > > signature back in kernel_read_file_from_fd(), if it was required. > > ?Having a key with which to verify the appended signature or requiring > > an appended signature, should not be required as well. > > I guess I don't need to put in any support for IMA here, then, and you've > taken care of it in your patchset such that it won't actually go into > module_sig_check() in that case (or will at least return immediately). Right, it would never get here if the IMA signature verification fails. ?If sig_enforce is not enabled, then it will also work. ?So the only case is if sig_enforced is enabled and there is no key. eg. ? ? ? ? ?else if (can_do_ima_check && is_ima_appraise_enabled()) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? err = 0; Mimi? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html