Re: [PULL REQUEST] Lock down patches
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Date: 2019-03-01 01:44:35
Also in:
lkml
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Date: 2019-03-01 01:44:35
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 17:01 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
quoted
That's not a valid reason for preventing systems that do use IMA for verifying the kexec kernel image signature or kernel module signatures from enabling "lock down". This just means that there needs to be some coordination between the different signature verification methods. [1][2]I agree, but the current form of the integration makes it impossible for anyone using an IMA-enabled kernel (but not using IMA) to do anything unless they have IMA signatures. It's a problem we need to solve, I just don't think it's a problem we need to solve before merging the patchset.
That's simply not true. Have you even looked at the IMA architecture patches? fcf338449af5 x86/ima: require signed kernel modules d958083a8f64 x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86 Mimi