Thread (45 messages) 45 messages, 5 authors, 2019-03-19

Re: [PULL REQUEST] Lock down patches

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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help