lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kexec: Do not verify the signature without the lockdown or mandatory signature
From
Date
在 2020年05月26日 21:59, Jiri Bohac 写道:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:23:51PM +0800, Lianbo Jiang wrote:
>> So, here, let's simplify the logic to improve code readability. If the
>> KEXEC_SIG_FORCE enabled or kexec lockdown enabled, signature verification
>> is mandated. Otherwise, we lift the bar for any kernel image.
>
> I agree completely; in fact that was my intention when
> introducing the code, but I got overruled about the return codes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180119125425.l72meyyc2qtrriwe@dwarf.suse.cz/
>
> I like this simplification very much, except this part:
>
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_debug("kernel signature verification failed (%d).\n", ret);
>
> ...
>
>> - pr_notice("kernel signature verification failed (%d).\n", ret);
>
> I think the log level should stay at most PR_NOTICE when the
> verification failure results in rejecting the kernel. Perhaps
> even lower.
>

Thank you for the comment, Jiri Bohac.

I like the idea of staying at most PR_NOTICE, but the pr_notice() will output
some messages that kernel could want to ignore, such as the case you mentioned
below.

> In case verification is not enforced and the failure is
> ignored, KERN_DEBUG seems reasonable.
>

Yes, good understanding. It seems that the pr_debug() is still a good option here?
Any other thoughts?

Thanks.
Lianbo


> Regards,
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-27 05:17    [W:0.079 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site