lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blackl ist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI CERT X509 G UID support for dbx/mokx entries]
From
Date

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> This looks good to me, and it still works for my use case. Eric's
> patchset only looks for asymmetric keys in the blacklist keyring, so
> even if we use the same keyring we don't look for the same key types. My
> patchset only allows blacklist keys (i.e. hashes, not asymmetric keys)
> to be added by user space (if authenticated), but because Eric's
> asymmetric keys are loaded with KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION, it should
> be OK for his use case. There should be no interference between the two
> new features, but I find it a bit confusing to have such distinct use of
> keys from the same keyring depending on their type.

I agree, it is a bit confusing. What is the thought of having a dbx
keyring, similar to how the platform keyring works?

https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-security-module/msg40262.html


> On 03/02/2021 17:26, David Howells wrote:
>>
>> Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the fifth patch series for adding support for
>>> EFI_CERT_X509_GUID entries [1]. It has been expanded to not only include
>>> dbx entries but also entries in the mokx. Additionally my series to
>>> preload these certificate [2] has also been included.
>>
>> Okay, I've tentatively applied this to my keys-next branch. However, it
>> conflicts minorly with Mickaël Salaün's patches that I've previously merged on
>> the same branch. Can you have a look at the merge commit
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=keys-next&id=fdbbe7ceeb95090d09c33ce0497e0394c82aa33d
>>
>> (the top patch of my keys-next branch)
>>
>> to see if that is okay by both of you? If so, can you give it a whirl?


I’m seeing a build error within blacklist_hashes_checked with
one of my configs.

The config is as follows:

$ grep CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST .config
CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST=“revocation_list"

$ cat certs/revocation_list
"tbs:1e125ea4f38acb7b29b0c495fd8e7602c2c3353b913811a9da3a2fb505c08a32”

make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'revocation_list', needed by 'certs/blacklist_hashes_checked'. Stop.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-04 04:58    [W:0.120 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site