lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
From
Date
Hi Seth,

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 09:18 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Require signed kernel modules on systems with secure boot mode enabled.
> >
> > To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA
> > signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if
> > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled.
> >
> > This patch defines a function named set_module_sig_required() and renames
> > is_module_sig_enforced() to is_module_sig_enforced_or_required(). The
> > call to set_module_sig_required() is dependent on CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY
> > being enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
>
> With respect to interactions with the kernel lockdown patches, this
> looks better than the patches I saw previously. I don't feel like I know
> enough about what's going on with IMA to ack the patch, but I feel
> confident that it's at least not going to break signature enforcement
> for us.

Thank you for testing!  Could this be translated into a "tested-by"
"(for w/lockdown patches)"?

Mimi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-05 17:49    [W:0.153 / U:1.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site