On 21/01/2021 00:53, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:57:55PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >> >> On 20/01/2021 06:19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 04:19:07PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>>> From: Mickaël Salaün <m...@linux.microsoft.com> >>>> >>>> Add and use a check-blacklist-hashes.awk script to make sure that the >>>> builtin blacklist hashes will be approved by the run time blacklist >>>> description checks. This is useful to debug invalid hash formats, and >>>> it make sure that previous hashes which could have been loaded in the >>>> kernel (but ignored) are now noticed and deal with by the user. >>>> >>>> Cc: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> >>>> Cc: David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <m...@linux.microsoft.com> >>>> Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jar...@kernel.org> >>> >>> I get this with a self-signed cert: >>> >>> certs/Makefile:18: *** target pattern contains no '%'. Stop. >>> >>> CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST="tbs:8eed1340eef37c1dc84d996406ad05c7dbb3eade19132d688408ca2f63904869" >> >> As said in the Kconfig documentation for >> CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST, you need to provide a file with the >> list, not to set the string directly in the configuration variable. This >> patch series didn't change this behavior. The same kind of macros are >> used for CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY. > > OK, the documentation just states that: > > "Hashes to be preloaded into the system blacklist keyring" > > No mention about a file. I'd add a patch to update this documentation.
I was referring to the full description: config SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST string "Hashes to be preloaded into the system blacklist keyring" depends on SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING help If set, this option should be the filename of a list of hashes in the form "<hash>", "<hash>", ... . This will be included into a C wrapper to incorporate the list into the kernel. Each <hash> should be a string of hex digits. …but the short description doesn't mention filename. > >> >>> >>> I used the script in 10/10 to test this, which is another >>> reamark: the patches are in invalid order, as you need to >>> apply 10/10 before you can test 8/10. >> >> I'll move patch 10/10 earlier but this kind of formatting was already >> required (but silently ignored) for this option to be really taken into >> account. Only the kernel code was available to understand how to >> effectively create such hash. > > Great, thanks. > > >>> >>> /Jarkko >>> > > > /Jarkko >