[PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules

Mimi Zohar zohar at linux.ibm.com
Tue Feb 5 16:47:24 UTC 2019

Hi Seth,

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 09:18 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Require signed kernel modules on systems with secure boot mode enabled.
> > 
> > To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA
> > signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if
> > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled.
> > 
> > This patch defines a function named set_module_sig_required() and renames
> > is_module_sig_enforced() to is_module_sig_enforced_or_required().  The
> > call to set_module_sig_required() is dependent on CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY
> > being enabled.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com>
> With respect to interactions with the kernel lockdown patches, this
> looks better than the patches I saw previously. I don't feel like I know
> enough about what's going on with IMA to ack the patch, but I feel
> confident that it's at least not going to break signature enforcement
> for us.

Thank you for testing!  Could this be translated into a "tested-by"
"(for w/lockdown patches)"?


More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list