[PULL REQUEST] Lock down patches

Mimi Zohar zohar at linux.ibm.com
Fri Mar 1 01:44:14 UTC 2019

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 17:01 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> > That's not a valid reason for preventing systems that do use IMA for
> > verifying the kexec kernel image signature or kernel module signatures
> > from enabling "lock down".  This just means that there needs to be
> > some coordination between the different signature verification
> > methods. [1][2]
> I agree, but the current form of the integration makes it impossible
> for anyone using an IMA-enabled kernel (but not using IMA) to do
> anything unless they have IMA signatures. It's a problem we need to
> solve, I just don't think it's a problem we need to solve before
> merging the patchset.

That's simply not true.  Have you even looked at the IMA architecture

fcf338449af5 x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
d958083a8f64 x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86


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