[PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK
zohar at linux.ibm.com
Thu Aug 19 17:32:34 UTC 2021
On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 09:23 -0600, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 14:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 20:20 -0400, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> >>> Downstream Linux distros try to have a single signed kernel for each
> >>> architecture. Each end-user may use this kernel in entirely different
> >>> ways. Some downstream kernels have chosen to always trust platform keys
> >>> within the Linux trust boundary for kernel module signing. These
> >>> kernels have no way of using digital signature base IMA appraisal.
> >>> This series introduces a new Linux kernel keyring containing the Machine
> >>> Owner Keys (MOK) called .mok. It also adds a new MOK variable to shim.
> >> I would name it as ".machine" because it is more "re-usable" name, e.g.
> >> could be used for similar things as MOK. ".mok" is a bad name because
> >> it binds directly to a single piece of user space software.
> > Nayna previously said,
> > "I believe the underlying source from where CA keys are loaded might vary
> > based on the architecture (".mok" is UEFI specific.). The key part is
> > that this new keyring should contain only CA keys which can be later
> > used to vouch for user keys loaded onto IMA or secondary keyring at
> > runtime. It would be good to have a "ca" in the name, like .xxxx-ca,
> > where xxxx can be machine, owner, or system. I prefer .system-ca."
> > The CA keys on the MOK db is simply the first root of trust being
> > defined, but other roots of trust are sure to follow. For this reason,
> > I agree naming the new keyring "mok" should be avoided.
> As I said previously, I’m open to renaming, I just would like to have an
> agreement on the new name before changing everything. The current proposed
> names I have heard are “.machine" and ".system-ca". Is there a preference
> the maintainers feel is appropriate? If so, please let me know and I’ll
> rename it. Thanks.
Jarkko, I think the emphasis should not be on "machine" from Machine
Owner Key (MOK), but on "owner". Whereas Nayna is focusing more on the
"_ca" aspect of the name. Perhaps consider naming it
"system_owner_ca" or something along those lines.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive