From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>
Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
kexec <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kexec_load(2) bypasses signature verification
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:01:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150615200115.GG5003@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+5PVA6YKR_=uVpM2rW4et3YCJLh9c+uuxt2koH1Fy2ZuR7W-g@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:37:05AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> The bits that actually read Secure Boot state out of the UEFI
> variables, and apply protections to the machine to avoid compromise
> under the SB threat model. Things like disabling the old kexec...
I don't have any real interest in using Secure Boot, but I *am*
interested in using CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG[1]. So perhaps we need to
have something similar to what we have with signed modules in terms of
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE and module/sig_enforce, but for
KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG. This would mean creating a separate flag
independent of the one Linus suggested for Secure Boot, but since we
have one for signed modules, we do have precedent for this sort of
thing.
- Ted
[1] Yes, it doesn't buy all that much, since if the system is rooted
the adversary can just replace the kernel in /boot and force a normal,
slower reboot, but the same could be said for signed modules --- the
adversary could just replace all of /boot/vmlinux-<kver> and
/lib/modules/<kver>. But both measures make it a tad more bit
difficult, especially for the adversary to do this replacement without
being noticed (for example linode will send me e-mail if the system
reboots normally, but not with a kexec-mediated reboot), and for cloud
systems where we don't have secure boot anyway, it's about the best we
can do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-15 20:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-15 3:50 kexec_load(2) bypasses signature verification Theodore Ts'o
2015-06-15 12:14 ` Josh Boyer
2015-06-15 13:17 ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-06-15 13:37 ` Josh Boyer
2015-06-15 20:01 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2015-06-16 19:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-06-16 20:27 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-06-17 1:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-06-17 1:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-06-18 1:16 ` Dave Young
2015-06-18 2:02 ` Dave Young
2015-06-18 13:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-06-18 14:41 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-06-19 6:21 ` Dave Young
2015-06-19 8:18 ` Dave Young
2015-06-19 13:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-06-25 8:48 ` Dave Young
2015-06-25 15:59 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-06-26 1:59 ` Dave Young
2015-06-19 7:04 ` Dave Young
2015-06-19 13:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-06-17 3:26 ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-06-17 10:55 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2015-06-18 1:25 ` Dave Young
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=20150615200115.GG5003@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jwboyer@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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