[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [4]   [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]

> On Feb 4, 2021, at 1:26 AM, Mickaël Salaün <> wrote:
> On 04/02/2021 04:53, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün <> 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?
>>> On 03/02/2021 17:26, David Howells wrote:
>>>> Eric Snowberg <> 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
>>>> (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:
>> $ cat certs/revocation_list
>> "tbs:1e125ea4f38acb7b29b0c495fd8e7602c2c3353b913811a9da3a2fb505c08a32”
>> make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'revocation_list', needed by 'certs/blacklist_hashes_checked'. Stop.
> It requires an absolute path.

Ok, if I use an absolute path now with CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST
it works.

> This is to align with other variables
> using the config_filename macro: CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS,

I just did a quick test with CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS. It looks like we
can use either a relative or absolute path with CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS.
Shouldn’t this be consistent?

> Cf.
> We may want to patch scripts/kconfig/ for both
> warn user (and exit with an error) if such files are not found.

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-05 01:28    [W:0.096 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site