[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklis t patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI CERT X509 GUID support for dbx/mokx entries]

On 05/02/2021 01:24, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>> 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?

CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS (and similar config) works with relative path
to $(srctree) not $(srctree)/certs as in your example.

We can make CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST works with $(srctree) with
this patch:

diff --git a/certs/Makefile b/certs/Makefile
index eb45407ff282..92a233eaa926 100644
--- a/certs/Makefile
+++ b/certs/Makefile
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ $(eval $(call config_filename,SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST))

$(obj)/blacklist_hashes.o: $(obj)/blacklist_hashes_checked

+CFLAGS_blacklist_hashes.o += -I$(srctree)
targets += blacklist_hashes_checked

>> 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 11:33    [W:0.118 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site