Re: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries]
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
Date: 2021-02-04 08:27:24
Also in:
keyrings, linux-kbuild, lkml
On 04/02/2021 04:53, Eric Snowberg wrote:
quoted
On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün [off-list ref] 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.htmlquoted
On 03/02/2021 17:26, David Howells wrote:quoted
Eric Snowberg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
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 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=keys-next&id=fdbbe7ceeb95090d09c33ce0497e0394c82aa33d (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: $ grep CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST .config CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST=“revocation_list" $ 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. This is to align with other variables using the config_filename macro: CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS, CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY and now CONFIG_SYSTEM_REVOCATION_KEYS. Cf. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1221725.1607515111@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ (local) We may want to patch scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl for both CONFIG_SYSTEM_REVOCATION_KEYS and CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST, to warn user (and exit with an error) if such files are not found.