Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring

From	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring
Date	2016-01-12 15:00 +0100
Message-ID	<qQ7En-1Fv-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <qPuWo-F7-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <qPVjQ-1If-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qPWzg-2LM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQ43L-7TO-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQ7bl-1rC-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903

Show all headers | View raw

Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> >  (1) public_key_restrict_link() restricts to asymmetric keys that are
> >      signed by a CA in the specified keyring.  It returns -ENOKEY if no
> >      matching key is found rather than -EKEYREJECTED, however, so you can
> >      call it several times for different keyrings.  -EKEYREJECTED is only
> >      returned if a signature check fails.  This is used by the following
> >      two functions.
> 
> Ok, so it is restricted it to CAs.  Combining it with an option to limit
> it to the builtin CA keys based on the builtin flag would be nice.

Is there a point to the builtin flag if .system_keyring is closed?  Currently
all keys that go into .system_keyring are marked BUILTIN.

But, yes, the restriction can include only using built in CAs.

> >  (1) .system_keyring uses restrict_link_by_system_trusted() - though it
> >      lacks any sort of write permission, so it's currently moot.  It could
> >      just as well be replaced with a function that just returns -EPERM.
> 
> Why not retain the current semantics of the system keyring of not being
> writable and create a new keyring for new feature(s)?

I think that the problem we have is that it can be argued either way.  You
would rather create a new keyring to hold additional keys, whereas I would
prefer to use the keyring we already have.

Do you have a technical reason why we can't just open the system keyring?
It's not precisely a new feature, but rather an extension to an existing one
that's been under consideration for a while.

> The name "restrict_link_by_ima_mok()" doesn't reflect that it is either
> the system keyring or the IMA MOK keyring.

How about restrict_link_by_ima_trusted()?

David

Thread

[PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA  MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-06 14:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2016-01-07 01:10 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-07 01:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-07 03:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-07 04:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-07 16:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2016-01-10 11:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-10 14:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-10 18:50 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-10 21:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-11 01:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 01:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring  David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 03:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-12 04:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 11:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-12 14:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 15:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-12 16:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 17:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-12 17:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-10 21:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 02:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-12 17:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-12 18:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-13 17:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-13 19:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-13 19:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-13 19:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-13 19:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-13 20:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against  IMA MOK keyring Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-13 20:20 +0100

csiph-web