lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Re: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries]
Date
Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com> wrote:

> > 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

That would be fine by me.

David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-04 10:15    [W:0.080 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site