public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au,
	pjones@redhat.com, jwboyer@redhat.com,
	linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@linux-nfs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x509_key_preparse() not to reject keys outside their validity time range
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:06:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5148D35F.5070704@ahsoftware.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1363263842.4853.35.camel@i7.infradead.org>

Am 14.03.2013 13:24, schrieb David Woodhouse:
> The x509_key_preparse() function will refuse to even *parse* a
> certificate when the system clock happens to be set to a time before the
> ValidFrom or after the ValidTo date.
>
> This is wrong. If date checks are to be done, they need to be done at
> the time the cert is *used*. It should be perfectly possible to load a
> cert which is post-dated, and can only be used for validation at some
> point in the future. The key in question should immediately start
> working at its ValidFrom date, and stop again at its ValidTo date. It
> should be allowed to *exist* in the kernel both before and after those
> times.
>
> On systems where the hardware clock is inaccurate (a common occurrence
> and one which doesn't even get noticed when you use NTP or something
> else to fix it during the boot sequence), this was preventing the module
> signing cert from being loaded during boot. When the clock got fixed
> later on in he boot sequence, things *should* have started working. But
> they didn't...
>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
> ---
>
> Arguably, for the specific case of module signing we shouldn't bother
> checking for a current time before the ValidFrom date *at all*. It's
> *always* going to be a screwed up system clock, because we don't have a
> usage model of post-dating module signatures. We should simply document
> that the date is *not* checked for module signing, and have done with
> it. But that's a separate issue.
>
> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> index 06007f0..326dc80 100644
> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> @@ -154,8 +154,6 @@ static int x509_key_preparse(struct key_preparsed_payload *prep)
>   		     (now.tm_sec < cert->valid_from.tm_sec
>   		      ))))))))))) {
>   		pr_warn("Cert %s is not yet valid\n", cert->fingerprint);
> -		ret = -EKEYREJECTED;
> -		goto error_free_cert;
>   	}
>   	if (now.tm_year > cert->valid_to.tm_year ||
>   	    (now.tm_year == cert->valid_to.tm_year &&
> @@ -170,8 +168,6 @@ static int x509_key_preparse(struct key_preparsed_payload *prep)
>   		     (now.tm_sec > cert->valid_to.tm_sec
>   		      ))))))))))) {
>   		pr_warn("Cert %s has expired\n", cert->fingerprint);
> -		ret = -EKEYEXPIRED;
> -		goto error_free_cert;
>   	}
>
>   	cert->pub->algo = x509_public_key_algorithms[cert->pkey_algo];

Why not remove the check and warning there too?

Regards,

Alexander


  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-19 21:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-25  0:07 [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing David Howells
2012-09-25  0:11 ` David Howells
2012-09-25 15:09 ` Wrong system clock vs X.509 date specifiers David Howells
2012-09-25 15:30   ` Alan Cox
2012-09-25 15:35     ` David Howells
2012-09-25 15:43       ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-25 16:00       ` Alan Cox
2012-09-25 21:57         ` David Howells
2012-09-25 16:02       ` Tomas Mraz
2012-09-25 17:31         ` David Howells
2012-09-25 18:39           ` Tomas Mraz
2013-03-14 10:48     ` David Woodhouse
2013-03-14 12:24       ` [PATCH] Fix x509_key_preparse() not to reject keys outside their validity time range David Woodhouse
2013-03-19 21:06         ` Alexander Holler [this message]
2012-09-25 15:44 ` [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-09-25 16:15   ` David Howells
2012-09-26  3:46 ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-26  9:09   ` David Howells
2012-09-27  0:12     ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-27  9:08       ` David Howells
2012-09-28  5:55         ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  8:13           ` David Howells
2012-09-28  5:58         ` [PATCH 1/2] modsign: don't use bashism in sh scripts Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  8:10           ` David Howells
2012-10-02  2:24             ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  5:59         ` [PATCH 2/2] modules: don't call eu-strip if it doesn't exist Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  8:11           ` David Howells
2012-09-28  6:05         ` [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  8:09           ` David Howells
2012-09-29  6:53             ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-29  7:13               ` David Howells
2012-10-01 20:41                 ` Josh Boyer
2012-10-02  3:28                   ` Rusty Russell
2012-10-02 12:17                     ` Josh Boyer
2012-09-29  7:16               ` David Howells
2012-10-02  6:12                 ` Rusty Russell
2012-10-02 14:07                   ` David Howells
2012-10-03 23:22                     ` Rusty Russell
2012-10-09 10:55                       ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-10-10  9:37                         ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  9:23           ` David Howells
2012-09-28 10:31           ` David Howells
2012-10-03 17:50         ` [patch] MODSIGN: Fix build error with strict typechecking David Rientjes
2012-09-27  2:04   ` [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing Mimi Zohar
2012-09-28  6:54     ` Rusty Russell
2012-09-28  6:27   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-09-28  8:00     ` David Howells

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=5148D35F.5070704@ahsoftware.de \
    --to=holler@ahsoftware.de \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au \
    --cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=keyrings@linux-nfs.org \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /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