Re: [PATCH v6 12/13] integrity: Trust MOK keys if MokListTrustedRT found
From: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>
Date: 2021-09-17 16:07:41
Also in:
keyrings, linux-crypto, linux-integrity, lkml
On Sep 17, 2021, at 9:03 AM, Peter Jones [off-list ref] wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:00:54PM -0600, Eric Snowberg wrote:quoted
quoted
On Sep 16, 2021, at 4:19 PM, Peter Jones [off-list ref] wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 05:14:15PM -0400, Eric Snowberg wrote:quoted
+/* + * Try to load the MokListTrustedRT UEFI variable to see if we should trust + * the mok keys within the kernel. It is not an error if this variable + * does not exist. If it does not exist, mok keys should not be trusted + * within the machine keyring. + */ +static __init bool uefi_check_trust_mok_keys(void) +{ + efi_status_t status; + unsigned int mtrust = 0; + unsigned long size = sizeof(mtrust); + efi_guid_t guid = EFI_SHIM_LOCK_GUID; + u32 attr; + + status = efi.get_variable(L"MokListTrustedRT", &guid, &attr, &size, &mtrust);This should use efi_mokvar_entry_find("MokListTrustedRT") instead, similar to how load_moklist_certs() does. It's a *much* more reliable mechanism. We don't even need to fall back to checking for the variable, as any version of shim that populates this supports the config table method.I’ll change this in v7, thanks.We do also need to figure out a path forward for something like Dimitri Ledkov's MokListX patch[0] from May, though it doesn't necessarily need to hold up this patch set. It looks like your patches will change the structure of the keyrings it needs to apply to, but I don't see a reason it wouldn't be conditional on the same MokListTrustedRT variable. Any thoughts? [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210512153100.285169-1-dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com/ (local)
I had a little different approach I was going to send for this problem, but dropped it after I saw Dimitri’s patch. Yes, we will need to figure out a way to merge the two. But I don’t see that being too difficult or them being incompatible with one another.