lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:47:24AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 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)"?

Yeah, that's fine. To be clear about what I tested, I've confirmed that
it doesn't interfere with requiring signed modules under lockdown with
CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=n and IMA appraisal enabled.

Tested-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-05 19:33    [W:0.079 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site