From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756053Ab3AUQmT (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:42:19 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58681 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752782Ab3AUQmS (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:42:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:42:13 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: Mimi Zohar Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pjones@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, dhowells@redhat.com, jwboyer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] binfmt_elf: Verify signature of signed elf binary Message-ID: <20130121164213.GB27617@redhat.com> References: <1358285695-26173-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1358285695-26173-3-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <871udloiku.fsf@xmission.com> <1358312159.4593.37.camel@falcor1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1358312159.4593.37.camel@falcor1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:55:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: [..] > Please remind me why you can't use IMA-appraisal, which was upstreamed > in Linux 3.7? Why another method is needed? So is this IMA-appraisal also supports digital signatures? The IMA white paper seems to put digital signatures in separate category (IMA-Appraisal-Signature-Extension). > > With IMA-appraisal, there are a couple of issues that would still need > to be addressed: > - missing the ability to specify the validation method required. > - modify the ima_appraise_tcb policy policy to require elf executables > to be digitally signed. For my use case, all executable don't have to be digitally signed. If something is digitally signed then do the signature verification. Thanks Vivek