Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ima: Implement support for uncompressed module appended signatures
From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <hidden>
Date: 2020-02-06 17:07:07
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On 2/6/2020 8:42 AM, Eric Snowberg wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ static const char * const keyring_name[INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX] = { ".ima", #endif ".platform", + ".builtin_trusted_keys", }; #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_KEYRINGS_PERMIT_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY@@ -45,8 +47,11 @@ static struct key *integrity_keyring_from_id(const unsigned int id) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); if (!keyring[id]) { - keyring[id] = - request_key(&key_type_keyring, keyring_name[id], NULL); + if (id == INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL) + keyring[id] = VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING;
Since "Built-In Trusted Keyring" or "Secondary Trusted Keyring" is used, would it be more appropriate to name this identifier INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h index 73fc286834d7..63f0e6bff0e0 100644 --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h@@ -145,7 +145,8 @@ int integrity_kernel_read(struct file *file, loff_t offset, #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_EVM 0 #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA 1 #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_PLATFORM 2 -#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX 3 +#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL 3 +#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX 4
-lakshmi