Petko Manolov <pet...@mip-labs.com> wrote: > > How about I change it to a choice-type item, with the following options: > > > > (1) No addition. > > > > (2) Addition restricted by built-in keyring. > > > > (3) Addition restricted by secondary keyring + built-in keyring. > > > > where the second and third options then depend on the appropriate keyrings > > being enabled. > > I would suggest leaving (1) and (3). Since secondary keyring only accepts > keys signed by certificate in the system keyring I think (2) is redundant. > It adds extra complexity (Kconfig is vague enough already) while it doesn't > increase the overall security by much.
If I remove option (2), that would mean that if you want to allow keys to be added to .ima if they're signed by the built-in keyring, then you also allow keys to be added to .ima if they're signed by the secondary keyring if enabled. Remember - these keyrings aren't necessarily restricted to IMA. David
