[RFC PATCH v5 0/1] Add dm verity root hash pkcs7 sig validation.
Jaskaran Singh Khurana
jaskarankhurana at linux.microsoft.com
Mon Jul 1 17:33:00 UTC 2019
Hello Milan,
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 29/06/2019 06:01, James Morris wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand your justification for this feature.
>>>
>>> If userspace has already been pwned severely enough for the attacker to be
>>> executing arbitrary code with CAP_SYS_ADMIN (which is what the device mapper
>>> ioctls need), what good are restrictions on loading more binaries from disk?
>>>
>>> Please explain your security model.
>>
>> Let's say the system has a policy where all code must be signed with a
>> valid key, and that one mechanism for enforcing this is via signed
>> dm-verity volumes. Validating the signature within the kernel provides
>> stronger assurance than userspace validation. The kernel validates and
>> executes the code, using kernel-resident keys, and does not need to rely
>> on validation which has occurred across a trust boundary.
>
> Yes, but as it is implemented in this patch, a certificate is provided as
> a binary blob by the (super)user that activates the dm-verity device.
>
> Actually, I can put there anything that looks like a correct signature (self-signed
> or so), and dm-verity code is happy because the root hash is now signed.
>
> Maybe could this concept be extended to support in-kernel compiled certificates?
>
> I like the idea of signed root hash, but the truth is that if you have access
> to device activation, it brings nothing, you can just put any cert in the keyring
> and use it.
>
> Milan
>
The signature needs to be trusted by the .builtin_trusted_keys which is
a read-only list of keys that were compiled into the kernel. The
verify_pkcs7_signature verifies trust against the builtin keyring so I
think what you are suggesting is covered here.
Regards,
Jaskaran.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list