From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B368FC43216 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 04:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF1961058 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 04:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234665AbhIAEfl (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 00:35:41 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50932 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229572AbhIAEfk (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 00:35:40 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DD4E60FC0; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 04:34:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1630470884; bh=3mYu60fBwt4q3TRGDVU2zleQgKPWNhp/oQv2LPQint0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h/24bkOrqWTCh2K3wO1KyRfSTs8qf8N4CkLobV3HycwUXPC6E8WP6E843gVOQYm3/ +8dJDOI8ogT28QoOIiQdywKlxyqbDxIbWzTaf62Zx2kQKvZdsHn+cZNSAJg976SXO1 h7Fuooig2gEN6GOik6alWzkJHOHKIxr7lboDOLIzeKcYVrWCKhMSNYgqoYEr6A9R3a oT+YnWpwBMRGR1sC+E3CeTNlUxatHQtIUMQ1Xqm/oEnLRxMKSB8dnLIwxoM1CTF52F x5Lr4i63UgzrVYMc7ewuoUHgPkegOCrw9yWotU6bzNNEyPW0TyCdN8fqnlWaAbiO7+ p50eb/iNtdJHg== Message-ID: <18c0a9ca6b3ab8103e3b9270a6f59539787f6e12.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Nayna , James Bottomley , Mimi Zohar , Eric Snowberg , David Howells Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity , David Woodhouse , Herbert Xu , "David S . Miller" , James Morris , "Serge E . Hallyn" , keescook@chromium.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, scott.branden@broadcom.com, weiyongjun1@huawei.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, ebiggers@google.com, ardb@kernel.org, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , lszubowi@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, pjones@redhat.com, "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , Patrick Uiterwijk Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 07:34:41 +0300 In-Reply-To: <10bc1017-2b45-43f3-ad91-d09310b24c2c@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20210819002109.534600-1-eric.snowberg@oracle.com> <91B1FE51-C6FC-4ADF-B05A-B1E59E20132E@oracle.com> <9526a4e0be9579a9e52064dd590a78c6496ee025.camel@linux.ibm.com> <9067ff7142d097698b827f3c1630a751898a76bf.camel@kernel.org> <10bc1017-2b45-43f3-ad91-d09310b24c2c@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 16:44 -0400, Nayna wrote: > On 8/25/21 6:27 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 01:21 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 10:34 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > Jarkko, I think the emphasis should not be on "machine" from > > > > > > > Machine Owner Key (MOK), but on "owner". Whereas Nayna is > > > > > > > focusing more on the "_ca" aspect of the name. Perhaps > > > > > > > consider naming it "system_owner_ca" or something along those > > > > > > > lines. > > > > > > What do you gain such overly long identifier? Makes no sense. > > > > > > What is "ca aspect of the name" anyway? > > > > > As I mentioned previously, the main usage of this new keyring is > > > > > that it should contain only CA keys which can be later used to > > > > > vouch for user keys loaded onto secondary or IMA keyring at > > > > > runtime. Having ca in the name like .xxxx_ca, would make the > > > > > keyring name self-describing. Since you preferred .system, we can > > > > > call it .system_ca. > > > > Sounds good to me. Jarkko? > > > >=20 > > > > thanks, > > > >=20 > > > > Mimi > > > I just wonder what you exactly gain with "_ca"? > > Remember, a CA cert is a self signed cert with the CA:TRUE basic > > constraint. Pretty much no secure boot key satisfies this (secure boot > > chose deliberately NOT to use CA certificates, so they're all some type > > of intermediate or leaf), so the design seems to be only to pick out > > the CA certificates you put in the MOK keyring. Adding the _ca suffix > > may deflect some of the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the > > keyring" emails ... >=20 > My understanding is the .system_ca keyring should not be restricted only= =20 > to self-signed CAs (Root CA). Any cert that can qualify as Root or=20 > Intermediate CA with Basic Constraints CA:TRUE should be allowed. In=20 > fact, the intermediate CA certificates closest to the leaf nodes would= =20 > be best. >=20 > Thanks for bringing up that adding the _ca suffix may deflect some of=20 > the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the keyring" emails. What the heck is the pragamatic gain of adding such a suffix? Makes zero sense. /Jarkko