On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 22:02 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > David Howells has posted v4 of his series of supporting PKCS#7 for module > signing. I'm in my v3 series now on RFCs for firmware PKCS#7 support, and > after > some review and patch shuffling I think this is ready for patch form. My own > series however depend on quite a bit of other pending changes, one series > which > will go through Rusty's tree, another series of fixes on firmware_class which > should go through Greg's tree. I'll wait until all this and David's own > patches > get merged before posting firmware PKCS#7 support. Before all this though in > preparation for fw signing one thing we should start to talk about more > broadly > however is how linux-firmware binary file signing would work in practice and > what we need, and make sure folks are OK with all this.
Commit 13752fe "security: introduce kernel_fw_from_file hook" introduced a new security hook. (IMA is on this hook as well.) Have you considered using this hook? Are there other places that this hook would need to be called? > I think we need one change here, we'd need to ensure that such key could only > be used for vetting firmware files, not modules loaded. The firmware_class > could for instance still use all the keys in system_trusted_keyring, which > would include the UEFI key db, but it does not seems reasonable to expect keys > used for fw signing to also go into system_trusted_keyring to also be used for > module signing. I agree totally! For this reason, IMA defined a separate trusted keyring to be used for verifying file signatures. Mimi > Other than this last nitpick, any other concerns or recommendations ? > > [0] https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/regulatory/crda > > Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
